\  i^  :0  2^ 


St*om  f  ^e  i.x^x^KX'^  of 

(J)rofe56or  T3?iffidm  J^^^^S  (B>teen 

(jSequeaf  ^eb  6^  ^itn  to 
t^e  £t6rati^  of 

(]()rtncefon  ^^eofogtcaf  ^etninarg 


THE 


MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP 


OF   THE 


PENTATEUCH 


Defended  Against  the  Views  and  Arguments  of 
Voltaire,  Paine,  Colenso,  Reuss,  Graf, 

KUENEN,  AND  WELLHAUSEN 


BY 

D.  MacDILL,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Professor  of  Apologetics  in  the  Theological  Seminary 
Xenia,  Ohio 


DAYTON,  OHIO 

W.  J.  SH0EY,  Publisher 
1896 


Copyright,  1896 
By  D.  MacDill 

All  rights  reserved 


PREFACE 


The  following  treatise  consists,  in  part,  of  lectures  delivered  to 
the  students  of  the  Xenia  Theological  Seminary.  Some  things 
appropriate  only  to  the  theological  class-room  have  been  omitted, 
and  additions  have  been  made. 

In  discussing  points  that  have  been  much  discussed  before,  and 
keeping  in  view  the  wants  of  theological  students  as  well  as  of 
readers  in  general,  it  is  necessary,  of  course,  in  some  cases  to  say 
what  has  already  been  said  by  others. 

I  am  indebted  to  many  authors,  which  will  be  readily  perceived 
by  the  learned  reader. 

It  has  been  thought  proper,  in  quoting  from  French  and  Ger- 
man authors,  to  accompany  the  quotations  with  an  English  trans- 
lation. Not  being  acquainted  with  the  Dutch  language,  I  have 
used  Wicksteed's  translation  of  Kuenen's  "Hexateuch." 

D.  MacDill. 
Xenia  THEOLOGiCAii  Seminary,  August*  1,  1896. 


iii 


CONTENTS 


Preface 


PA6K 

-  iii 


CHAPTER  I. 
CHAPTER  II. 


PART  I 

PREIillVaNARY 

The  Points  in  Dispute, 
History  op  the  Discussion, 


9 

13 


CHAPTER  I. 
CHAPTER  II. 
CHAPTER  III. 
CHAPTER  IV. 
CHAPTER  V. 
CHAPTER  VI. 
CHAPTER  VII. 
CHAPTER  VIII. 


PART  II 

Objections  Considered 

Objections  in  General, 27 

Claimed  Improprieties, 30 

Claimed  Anachronisms, 35 

Claimed  Allotopisms, 57 

Claimed  Contradictions, 63 

Claimed  Difficulties, 72 

Imaginings, ---93 

Plurality  of  Authors,    -------  103 


PART  in 


CHAPTER 

I. 

CHAPTER 

II. 

CHAPTER 

III. 

CHAPTER 

IV. 

CHAPTER 

V. 

CHAPTER 

VI. 

CHAPTER 

VII. 

CHAPTER 

VIII, 

CHAPTER 

IX. 

CHAPTER 

X. 

CHAPTER  XI. 


Internal  Evidence 

Adaptation, 119 

Deuteronomy  Presupposes  Other  Pentateuchal 

Books, 123 

Style, 129 

Journalistic  Form, 132 

Acquaintance  with  Egypt, 136 

Scientific  Accuracy, 143 

Historical  Integrity, 152 

Exactness, 161 

The  Legislation, 178 

Argument  from  Silence, 190 

Egyptian  Words  and  Names, 193 

V 


VI 


CONTENTS 

PART  IV 


External  Evidence 

CHAPTER  I.  The  Book  of  Joshua, -       -  197 

CHAPTER  II.  Historical.  Books  after  Joshua, 208 

CHAPTER  III.  The  Psalms, 221 

CHAPTER  IV.  The  Prophecies, -  225 

CHAPTER  V.  The  Historical,  Argument, 229 

CHAPTER  VI.  Testimony  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  -       -       -  248 

CHAPTER  VII.  Consequences,        - 257 


PART  I 

PRELIMINARY 


PART  I 
PRELIMINARY 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  POINTS  IN  DISPUTE 

/.     The  Points  Advocated  by  the  Analytic  Critics. 

The  non-Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  as  contended  for  at 
the  present  time,  involves  many  points  and  propositions,  which 
may  be  stated  as  follows : 

1.  The  whole  discussion,  as  carried  on  by  the  leading  ana- 
lytic critics,  is  permeated  by  the  doctrine  of  evolution.  Their 
aim  and  effort  are  to  show,  by  means  of  this  doctrine,  that  God 
Almighty  had  nothing  to  do  in  the  production  of  the  Pentateuch 
or  anj'-  other  portion  of  the  Bible,  just  as  the  atheistic  evolution- 
ists have  been  endeavoring  to  eliminate  from  the  minds  of  men 
all  belief  in  the  theistic  origin  and  government  of  the  universe. 

2.  Since,  according  to  the  theory  of  development  and  growth, 
the  Pentateuch  cannot  be  the  production  of  a  single  mind,  nor 
of  one  age,  there  naturally  emerges  the  hypothesis  that  it  is 
made  up  of  documents  written  by  different  authors,  who  lived 
in  different  ages.  These  documents  and  their  authors  are  rep- 
resented by  the  letters  D,  E,  J,  P,  and  Q.  The  critics  further 
suppose  that  these  original  documents  were  combined  and  dove- 
tailed together  by  writers  acting  as  editors,  compilers,  and 
revisers.  These  are  designated  by  the  letters  d,  e,  j,  R,  P^  P^, 
P^,  etc.  A  tabular  presentation  of  the  letters  which  represent 
the  supposed  authors,  editors,  compilers,  revisers,  and  redactors 
of  the  Pentateuch,  looks  a  good  deal  like  a  complicated  alge- 
braic equation,  or  a  binomial  raised  to  the  fifth  power.  An 
American  follower  of  the  analytic  critics  actually  presents  the 
following  formula: 

Hexateuch=^  Rje     Rd R 


lO  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OP   THE    PENTATEUCH 

In  this  fractional  equation  the  denominators  represent  com- 
pilers and  editors.^ 

3.  In  regard  to  the  times  in  which  the  supposed  authors, 
compilers,  and  redactors  lived  and  wrote,  these  critics  hold,  or 
rather  suppose,  as  follows  :  that  J  lived  in  the  ninth  century 
B.C. ;^  E  in  the  eighth  century  B.C. i^  D  in  the  seventh,*  prob- 
ably during  the  reign  of  King  Manasseh;  and  P  in  the  ^fth.^ 
The  times  of  the  other  writers  are  scarcely  even  conjectured,  the 
most  of  the  critics  not  venturing  to  propose  an  hypothesis  con- 
cerning them. 

4.  In  regard  to  the  times  in  which  the  Pentateuchal  books,  as 
we  have  them,  were  produced,  the  views  of  the  analysts  are  as 
follows  :  They  hold  that  Deuteronomy,  written  as  they  claim  by 
an  unknown  author,  whom  they  call  D,  is  the  book  that  was 
found  by  Hilkiah  in  the  temple,  in  the  time  of  King  Josiah.^ 
They  suppose  that  J  and  E,  original  documents  by  unknown 
and  nameless  authors,  were  amalgamated,  by  another  unknown 
and  nameless  author,  so  as  to  form  one  book,  JE,  at  some 
unknown  time,  either  before  or  after  the  book  of  the  law  was 
found  in  the  temple.  They  claim  that  Deuteronomy  is  the  oldest 
book  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  other  four  books,  as  we  have  them, 
having  originated  during  the  exile,  or  after  it. 

5.  If  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuchal  laws  is  to  be  accounted 
for  by  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  they,  too,  must  have  come  into 
existence  at  different  times.  The  hypothesis  of  the  analysts  is 
that  there  are  three  groups  of  laws,  which  they  designate  as  the 
book  of  the  covenant,  the  law  of  holiness,  and  the  Deuteronomic 
leg-islation;  and  that  these  constitute,  as  it  were,  three  distinct 
strata  deposited  in  different  ages. 

6.  In  the  advocacy  of  these  points  and  propositions,  critics 
are  led  by  logical  necessity  to  introduce  many  subsidiary  hypoth- 
eses and  subordinate  propositions.  Much  is  made  of  supposed 
discrepancies  and  contradictions,  both  in  the  historical  and  in  the 
legislative  portions  of  the  Pentateuch.  And  not  only  is  the  his- 
torical integrity  of  the  Pentateuch  impeached  in  order  to  show 

*  Bacon's  Genesis  of  Genesis,  p.  66. 

2  Kautzsch-Socin,  Die  Heilige  Schrift  des  AUen  Testaments,  Erkldrung,  p. 
xiv. 

3  Alyriss,  p.  156. 

*  Erklarung,  p.  xiv. 
s  Abriss,  p.  188. 

« II.  Kings  22  :  8-11;  II.  Chr.  34  :  15-19. 


THE  POINTS  IN  DISPUTE  II 

that  Moses  did  not  write  it,  but  also  the  trustworthiness  of  other 
scriptures  is  impeached,  because  they  bear  testimony  to  the 
early  existence  of  the  Pentateuchal  laws  and  books.  The  denial 
of  the  early  existence  of  the  lycvitical  ritual  and  legislation  in- 
volves the  conclusion  that  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  never  existed  at 
all.  Hence  the  necessity  for  the  hypothesis  that  the  tabernacle, 
with  its  whole  history,  as  embraced  in  the  Pentateuch  and  other 
parts  of  the  Bible,  is  but  the  idea  of  the  temple  of  Solomon  pro- 
jected back  into  the  past  by  the  Jewish  imagination.  Another 
hypothesis  necessitated  by  the  rejection  of  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch  is,  that  the  formulae,  "The  lyord  said 
unto  Moses,"  and  "God  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,"  are  a  legal 
fiction,  gotten  up  as  an  expedient  to  impart  the  name  and 
authority  of  Moses  to  laws  enacted  long  after  his  time. 

Such,  in  the  main,  are  the  views  and  hypotheses  which  the 
analytic  critics  propose  and  maintain  in  regard  to  the  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch. 

//.     The  Traditional  View. 

The  traditional  view,  as  it  is  often  called,  ma}^  be  stated  as 
follows : 

1.  That  Moses  is  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  substantially 
as  we  have  it.  It  is  not  denied  that  Moses  may  have  emploj-ed 
amanuenses,  nor  that  these  may  have  sometimes  employed  their 
own  style  of  thought  and  language.  But  the  acceptance  and 
approval  of  what  they  wrote,  by  Moses,  as  his  own,  would  make 
the  whole  Mosaic. 

2.  That  the  last  eight  verses  of  the  last  chapter  of  Deuter- 
onomy, probably  the  whole  chapter,  and  possibly  some  brief 
passages  found  scattered  through  the  Pentateuchal  books 
(equivalent  to  modern  editorial  and  marginal  notes)  were 
written  by  Ezra  or  some  other  duly  qualified  and  authorized 
person.  Such  additions  by  a  post-Mosaic  hand  do  not  destroy 
the  integrity  of  the  work.  The.  traditional  theorj^  is  that  Moses 
wrote  the  Pentateuch  stibstantially  as  we  have  it. 

3.  Some  of  the  conservative  critics  are  willing  to  concede 
that  several  documents  are  embodied  in  the  Pentateuch.  On 
antecedent  grounds  we  incline  to  think  this  probable.  At 
least  we  do  not  repel  the  suggestion  that  there  maj'  be  several 
original  documents  combined-in  Genesis.  Who  more  likely  to 
have  such  documents  and  to  utilize  them  than  Moses,  who  was 


12  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians?  He  may  have  had 
in  his  possession  family  registers  and  other  memorials  brought 
by  Abraham  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees.  He  may  have  had  access 
in  Egypt  to  old  documents,  which  he  carried  in  memory  and 
afterward  reproduced  with  omissions,  additions,  and  other 
emendations,  according  to  the  wisdom  and  inspiration  which 
God  vouchsafed  to  him.  He  may  have  obtained  ancient  narra- 
tives and  songs  or  other  traditional  lore  from  his  father-in-law, 
who  was  priest  (or  prince)  of  Midian,  a  statesman,  and  a 
worshiper  of  the  true  God. 

We  do  not  believe  that  the  analysts  have  proved  the  existence 
of  the  documents  which  they  denominate  J,  E,  and  P,  but  the 
evidence  they  adduce  for  this  is  much  more  respectable  than  for 
most  of  their  other  hypotheses. 

4.  That  there  are  errors  in  the  Pentateuch,  as  we  have  it,  is 
admitted  on  all  hands.  There  is  no  faultless  copy  of  it,  nor  of 
any  other  portion  of  the  Bible.  Errors,  however,  in  modern 
copies  and  in  the  ancient  manuscripts  do  not  prove  that  there 
were  errors  in  the  original  autographs  of  the  biblical  authors. 

5.  The  question  of  plenary  inspiration  is  not  involved  in  this 
discussion.  This  doctrine  is  not  necessary  to  the  defense  of  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  Indeed,  much  of  the 
reasoning  on  the  other  side  derives  all  its  plausibility  from  the 
doctrine  of  plenary  inspiration  and  its  corollaries,  the  infalli- 
bility and  inerrancy  of  the  Scriptures.  The  analytic  critics 
argue  thus :  There  are  errors  in  the  Pentateuch ;  therefore, 
Moses  did  not  write  it.  Were  it  not  for  the  inerrancy  of  Moses 
as  a  biblical  writer,  the  battering-ram  of  these  critics  would 
often  swing  without  anything  to  strike.  It  is  very  remarkable 
that  even  the  most  skeptical  critics,  in  their  argumentation, 
assume  as  their  major  premise  that  Moses  was  plenarily  in- 
spired, or  was  in  some  other  way  secured,  as  an  author  and 
legislator,  against  self-inconsistency  and  all  other  errors. 


CHAPTER  II 

HISTORY  OF  THE   DISCUSSION 

Up  to  the  time  of  Voltaire  there  were  only  sporadic  cases  of 
the  rejection  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is 
true  that  pretty  long  lists  of  authors  are  given  in  treatises  of  the 
analytic  critics,  in  such  a  way  (we  do  not  say  intentionally)  as 
to  make  the  impression  that  they  all  held  to  the  non-Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  Thus  the  names  of  Aben-Ezra, 
Carlstadt,  Spinoza,  Masius,  Peyrere,  Astruc,  Hobbes,  Clericus, 
and  others  are  classed  as  pioneers  or  adherents  of  the  analytic 
criticism.  Yet  the  majority  of  them  adhered  to  the  traditional 
belief  in  regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  Aben-Ezra 
and  Masius  claimed  only  that  some  things  in  the  Pentateuch 
were  written  by  a  later  hand,  which  a  majority  of  the  most 
conservative  biblical  critics  admit.  Peyrere  and  Clericus  gave 
up  their  anti-Mosaic  opinions  or  doubts,  and  returned  to  the 
traditional  belief.  Astruc,  who  has  sometimes  been  called  the 
father  of  the  analytic  criticism,  always  defended,  or  professed  to 
defend,  the  traditional  belief.  There  are  in  the  list  three  well- 
attested  anti-Mosaic  critics,  the  rash  and  eccentric  Carlstadt  and 
the  two  infidels  Spinoza  and  Hobbes. 

As  to  the  origination  of  the  analytic  criticism,  which  has  for 
its  main  objective  point  the  non-Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, rival  claims  have  been  set  up.  This  honor,  if  honor  it  is, 
has  been  given  to  Astruc,  Reuss,  Graf,  De  Wette,  and  others. 
Wellhausen,  who,  since  the  death  of  Kuenen,  is  probably  the 
ablest  of  the  destructive  critics,  writes  as  follows : 

"Die  H3^pothese,  die  man  nach  Graf  zu  benennen  pflegt, 
stammt  nicht  von  ihm,  sondern  von  seinem  Eehrer  Eduard 
Reuss.  Am  richtigsten  ware  sie  aber  zu  benennen  nach 
Leopold  George  und  Wilhelm  Vatke;  denn  sie  haben  dieselbe 
zuerst  literarisch  vertreten,  unabhangig  von  Reuss  und  unab- 
hangig  von  einander.  Ihrerseits  sind  alle  diese  Manner  von 
Martin  Lebrecht  de  Wette  ausgegangen,  dem  epochemachenden 

13 


14  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

Eroffner  der  historischen  Kritik  auf  diesem  Gebiete.  Zu  einer 
festen  Position  ist  freilich  de  Wette  nicht  gelangt,  aber  er  hat 
zuerst  deutlich  die  Kluft  empfunden  und  nachgewiesen,  welche 
sich  zwischen  dem  angeblichen  Ausgangspunkte  der  israelitischen 
Geschichte  und  ihr  selber  aufthut."  ^  ("The  hypothesis,  which 
is  named  after  Graf,  proceeds  not  from  him,  but  from  his  teacher, 
Edward  Reuss.  It  would  be  more  correct  to  name  it  after 
Leopold  George  and  Wilhelm  Vatke  ;  because  they  have  been  the 
first  to  give  it  literary  treatment,  independently  of  Reuss  and 
independently  of  each  other.  But  all  these  men  have  gone  out 
from  Martin  Lebrecht  de  Wette,  the  epoch-making  pioneer  of 
historical  criticism  in  this  field.  To  be  sure,  he  did  not  reach  a 
firm  position,  but  he  was  the  first  to  find  and  to  point  out  the 
chasm  which  opens  between  the  pretended  starting-point  of  the 
Israelitish  history  and  that  history  itself.") 

It  is  thus  seen  that  Wellhausen  is  disposed  to  ascribe  the 
paternity  of  what  he  recognizes  as  biblical  criticism  to  Graf 
rather  than  to  Astruc ;  to  Reuss  rather  than  to  Graf ;  to  George 
and  Vatke  rather  than  to  Reuss  ;  and  to  De  Wette  rather  than 
to  George  and  Vatke.  The  truth  is,  however,  that  nearly  a 
century  before  De  Wette,  Voltaire  had  set  forth  in  his  various 
writings  nearly  all  the  points  embraced  in  the  analytic  criti- 
cism, and  also  most  of  the  arguments  employed  by  the  critics 
in  maintaining  them.     These  points  are  as  follows: 

1.  That  Moses  was  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch. 

2.  That  Deuteronomy  is  the  book  that  was  found  in  the 
temple  in  the  time  of  King  Josiah. 

3.  That  the  first  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch  were  composed 
by  Ezra,  or  by  some  other  post-exilic  writer. 

4.  That  the  Book  of  JOvShua  had  a  similar  origin. 

5.  That  the  books  of  the  Hexateuch  were  compiled  from 
several  documents  written  by  as  many  different  authors,  who 
made  many  mistakes  and  often  contradict  one  another. 

6.  That  the  Eaw  came  after  the  Prophets. 

7.  That  most  of  the  laws  that  are  ascribed  to  Moses  did  not 
originate  until  long  after  his  time. 

8.  That  the  Pentateuchal  laws  and  worship  were  the  result, 
not  of  legislative  enactment,  nor  of  divine  appointment,  but  of 
gradual  development  and  growth. 

9.  That  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  never  really  existed,  and  that 

*  Wellliausen,  Prolegomena,  p.  4. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   DISCUSSION  I5 

the  history  of  it  and  references  to  it  in  the  Pentateuch  and  else- 
where are  false. 

10.  That  the  books  of  Kings,  Chronicles,  and  Esther,  as  well 
as  the  Hexateuch,  are  historically  untrustworthy. 

11.  That  nearly  all  the  Psalms  are  of  post-exilic  origin,  and 
that  King  David  wrote  but  very  few  of  them. 

12.  That  Solomon  was  not  the  author  of  the  Song  of  Songs, 
nor  of  Bcclesiastes  ;  nor  Isaiah  of  the  last  twenty-seven  chap- 
ters of  the  book  that  is  ascribed  to  him,  nor  of  all  the  thirty-nine 
chapters  which  precede. 

13.  The  Scriptures  abound  in  anachronisms,  contradictions, 
interpolations,  redactions,  alterations,  and  almost  all  kinds  of 
errors. 

14.  That  neither  the  testimony  of  the  apostles,  nor  even  that 
of  our  I^ord  Jesus  Christ,  in  regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  Old 
Testament  books  is  to  be  accepted  as  trustworthy. 

Nearly  all  the  points  embraced  in  this  summary  are  presented 
in  the  writings  of  Voltaire.  Indeed,  he  presents  more  of  the 
many  points  embraced  in  "the  higher  criticism  "  than  any  of  its 
distinguished  advocates  of  the  present  age.  The  only  critics 
who  equal  him  in  the  fullness  and  minuteness  of  presentation 
are  those  that  undertake  to  give  a  summarized  view  of  the 
whole.  He  is  by  no  means  consistent  with  himself;  but  for  this 
very  reason  he  is  a  better  exponent  of  the  analytic  criticism,  set- 
ting forth,  as  he  does,  the  divergent  opinions  of  the  various 
classes  of  its  advocates,  from  the  professedly  evangelical  sort  up 
to  the  rationalists  and  infidels. 

Voltaire  expressed  his  critical  views  timidly  and  cautiously  at 
first,  but  afterward  more  boldly  and  openly.  In  his  "Traite 
sur  Tolerance, "  he  refers  to  certain  passages  in  the  Pentateuch, 
which,  he  says,  had  been  claimed  as  mentioning  things  that 
occurred  after  Moses,  and  which,  therefore,  could  not  be  from 
him.  He  then  remarks  as  follows  :  ' '  One  replies  to  these 
objections  that  these  passages  are  notes  added  long  afterward  by 
the  copyists."^  He  then  alludes  to  the  opinion  held  at  one 
time  by  Leclerc,  as  being  held  by  some  other  theologians,  but 
he  speaks  of  them  as  "a  small  number  of  sectaries,  whose  curi- 
osity sounds  these  depths."  Then,  with  the  semblance  of  piety 
and  reverence,  he  makes  the  following  declaration  :  "When  the 
wise  and  the  ignorant,  princes  and  shepherds,  shall  appear,  after 

^  Traits  sur  Tolerance,  Melanges,  p.  452. 


l6  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OP   THE    PENTATEUCH 

this  short  life,  before  the  Master  of  eternit}^  each  one  of  us  then 
will  wish  to  have  been  just,  humane,  compassionate,  generous ; 
no  one  will  boast  to  have  known  precisely  in  what  year  the 
Pentateuch  was  written,  and  to  have  distinguished  the  text  from 
the  notes  which  were  in  use  by  the  scribes.  "^ 

It  is  evident  that  Voltaire  held  the  opinions  which  he  osten- 
sibly condemns.  The  fact  that  he  introduces  these  matters  in 
marginal  notes  in  his  "Treatise  on  Toleration,"  with  which  they 
have  no  logical  connection,  reveals  his  desire  and  intention  to 
discredit  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  His  real 
sentiments  are  more  fully  presented  in  his  "  Dictionnaire  Philoso- 
phique."  But  even  here  he  at  first  represents  himself  as  an 
advocate  of  traditional  views.  He  begins  the  first  section  of  his 
article  on  Moses  by  declaring  that  "philosophy,  researches  into 
antiquity,  the  spirit  of  discussion  and  of  criticism,  have  been 
pushed  so  far  that  at  length  many  learned  men  have  doubted 
whether  there  ever  was  a  Moses."  He  remarks  that  the  infidels 
claim  that  it  is  improbable  that  a  man  ever  existed  whose  whole 
life  was  a  continual  prodigy ;  that  it  is  declared  in  the  Jewish 
books  that  no  copy  of  the  Pentateuch  was  known  until  the  time 
of  King  Josiah ;  that  the  prophets  make  no  reference  to  the 
Pentateuch,  and  that  Solomon  proceeded  contrary  to  the  express 
law  of  Moses  in  adorning  the  temple.  He  then  declares  that 
"according  to  these  infidels,  the  books  attributed  to  Moses  were 
written  among  the  Babylonians  during  the  captivity,  or  immedi- 
ately after  it."  After  referring  to  Bolingbroke  as  reasoning 
against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  after 
quoting  the  testimony  of  Christ  and  the  New  Testament  in 
favor  of  it,  he  afiirms  that  "it  is  necessary  that  we  should  sub- 
mit our  reason,  as  many  men  have  done."  He  closes  with  the 
very  pious  remark  that  "  it  is  our  consolation  to  have  the  church 
with  us  in  maintaining  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch," in  opposition  to  philosophy,  research,  discussion,  and 
criticism. 

In  the  second  section  of  the  article  on  Moses,  in  the  "Diction- 
naire  Philosophique,"  the  author  again  treats  of  the  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch,  and  in  the  pretended  character  of  a  believer 
in  the  traditional  view.  He  represents  the  opponents  of  this 
view  as  presenting  the  following  arguments :  That  the  Scrip- 
ture itself  affirms  that  the  first  known  copy  of  the  Pentateuch 

*  Traits  sur  ToUrance,  Melanges,  p.  452. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   DISCUSSION  17 

was  found  in  the  temple  one  thousand  one  hundred  and  sixty- 
seven  years  after  the  time  of  Moses,  according  to  the  Hebrew 
computation  ;  that  the  book  was  not  known  until  after  the 
exile ;  that  events  are  mentioned  in  it  that  did  not  occur  until 
long  after  the  time  of  Moses ;  that  Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy 
are  contradictory ;  that  the  book  is  not  quoted  by  the  prophets, 
nor  in  the  Psalms,  nor  in  any  of  the  books  attributed  to 
Solomon  ;  that  the  Pentateuch  itself  does  not  claim  to  be  the 
work  of  Moses ;  that  if  Moses  was  the  author  he  would  not  have 
laid  down  rules  for  Jewish  kings  when  there  were  none,  nor 
were  likely  to  be  any ;  that  there  were  not  wealth  and  mechan- 
ical skill  enough  among  the  Israelites  to  construct  the  tabernacle 
in  the  wilderness. 

The  author  represents  the  advocates  of  the  traditional  view  as 
replying  to  the  above  reasoning  as  follows :  That  the  ways  of 
God  are  not  as  the  ways  of  men ;  that  God  proves,  leads,  and 
abandons  his  people  by  a  wisdom  which  is  unknown  to  us ;  that 
the  Jews  themselves  for  more  than  two  thousand  years  have 
believed  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  these  books ;  that  the 
church,  which  has  succeeded  the  sjmagogue,  and  which,  like  it, 
is  infallible,  has  decided  the  points  of  controversy  ;  and  that  the 
learned  ought  to  be  silent  when  the  church  speaks. 

In  regard  to  the  above,  we  remark  as  follows : 

1.  The  presentation  of  arguments  at  the  close  of  this  second 
section  of  the  article  on  Moses  in  favor  of  the  traditional  view 
is  in  accord  with  the  declaration  that  ' '  the  kisses  of  an  enemy 
are  deceitful."  The  closing  remark  that  the  church,  infallible 
like  the  synagogue,  has  decided  the  question,  and  that  therefore 
the  one  duty  is  silence  and  submission,  is,  of  course,  sarcastic, 
and  is  intended  to  decry  the  opinion  which  the  author  pretends 
to  be  upholding. 

2.  The  author  claims  that  he  is  presenting  the  objections 
urged  by  others  against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, but  the  most  of  them  were  originated  by  himself  He 
would  gladl}^  have  fathered  them  on  preceding  authors,  but  was 
obliged  to  content  himself  with  declaring  in  a  general  way  that 
these  are  the  objections  of  the  learned. 

3.  In  claiming  that  it  is  the  learned,  the  scholars  ("les 
savants"),  who  urge  these  objections,  Voltaire  set  the  example, 
which  has  been  followed  by  later  anah'sts.  These  in  nian}^  cases 
are  not  backward  to  claim  that  all  or  nearly  all  biblical  learning 


l8  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE)    PEJNTATEUCH 

and  scholarship  are  with  them,  and  that  those  who  do  not  accept 
their  views  are  unlearned  and  prejudiced. 

In  the  third  section  of  the  article  on  Moses,  the  critic  throws 
off  the  mask  and  makes  the  following  straightforward  declara- 
tion:  "In  regard  to  the  books  attributed  to  Moses,  the  most 
common  rules  of  criticism  do  not  permit  the  belief  that  he  is 
their  author. ' '  He  then  proceeds  in  an  equally  straightforward 
way  to  state  his  reasons  for  this  declaration.  They  are  as 
follows : 

1.  That  names  of  towns,  as  Jair  and  Dan,  that  were  unknown 
in  the  time  of  Moses,  are  mentioned  in  the  Pentateuch. 

2.  That  "the  book  of  the  wars  of  the  Lord"  is  referred  to, 
though  it  did  not  exist  until  after  the  time  of  Moses. 

3.  That  the  iron  bedstead  of  Og,  king  of  Bashan,  is  men- 
tioned as  existing  long  after  the  time  of  Moses. 

4.  That  cities  are  spoken  of  as  beyond  ( "  au  dela ' ' )  Jordan 
that  were  on  this  side  ("ende9a")  Jordan,  viewed  from  the 
point  at  which  Moses  was  at  the  supposed  time  of  writing. 

5.  That  sixty  great  and  fortified  cities  that  did  not  exist  in 
the  time  of  Moses  are  mentioned  in  the  Pentateuch. 

6.  That  the  Pentateuch  is  filled  with  accounts  of  miracles. 

7.  That  the  accounts  of  prodigies  and  of  God's  strange  and 
supernatural  dealings  with  the  Israelites  in  Eg3^pt  and  in  the 
desert,  the  ten  plagues,  the  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea,  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Egyptian  army,  etc.,  are  revolting  to  reason,  and 
cannot  have  been  written  by  Moses. 

After  stating  these  reasons,  he  proceeds  to  decry  the  general 
contents  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  closes  this  third  section  of  his 
article  on  Moses  with  these  words :  "  It  is  very  pardonable  in 
human  reason  to  see  in  such  history  only  the  barbarous  rudeness 
of  a  savage  people  of  the  primitive  times.  Man,  whatever  he 
may  do,  cannot  reason  otherwise ;  but  if  God  indeed  is  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  necessary  to  submit  without 
reasoning."^ 

Thus  in  the  "Traite  sur  Tolerance"  and  the  article  on  MOvSes 
in  the  "  Dictionnaire  Philosophique,"  taken  together,  we  have 
almost  all  the  points  and  arguments  that  are  set  forth  by  "the 
higher  criticism." 

I.  Precisely  like  the  analytic  critics  of  to-day,  Voltaire  was  at 
much  pains  to  prove  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch, 

*  CEuvres  de  Voltaire,  Hachette,  Vol.  XIX.,  p.  68. 


HISTORY  OF  THE   DISCUSSION  I9 

but  at  the  same  time  declared  that  this  is  a  point  of  no  impor- 
tance. "Whether  Ezra  or  some  other  author  committed  this 
book  to  writing,  is  a  matter  of  absolute  indifference,  since  it  is 
inspired."  ^  The  last  part  of  this  declaration  does  not  accord 
with  the  views  of  the  leading  critics,  nor  did  Voltaire  honestly 
make  it. 

2.  He  maintained  that  there  were  more  than  one  author  of 
the  Pentateuch  ;  that  notes,  interpolations,  and  additions  were 
inserted  in  it ;  and  that  parts  of  it  were  rewritten  by  redactors. 

3.  As  to  the  time  when  the  Pentateuch  was  written,  Voltaire 
was  not  consistent  with  himself.  At  one  time  he  declares  that, 
"without  doubt,  it  was  committed  to  writing  in  the  time  of  Saul 
and  Samuel."  At  another,  he  speaks  of  it  as  "having  been 
written  among  the  Babylonians  during  the  captivity,  or  imme- 
diately after  it."  At  still  another  time  he  is  quite  confident 
that  the  Pentateuch  is  later  than  the  prophecies,  Psalms,  and 
the  books  attributed  to  Solomon.  The  more  modern  analysts 
have  likewise  had  several  hypotheses  in  regard  to  the  time  of 
the  origin  of  the  Pentateuchal  books. 

4.  The  notion  of  development  and  progress  which  figures  so 
largely  in  "the  higher  criticism"  of  our  times  was  employed 
similarly  by  the  French  critic. 

5.  The  testimony  of  Christ  and  the  New  Testament  to  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  was  noticed  by  him,  as  by 
the  more  modern  analysts,  and,  like  them,  he  set  it  aside  as 
untrustworthy. 

6.  He  employed  the  same  arguments  as  are  now  employed  by 
his  successors :  the  account  of  the  finding  of  the  book  of  the 
law  in  King  Josiah's  time ;  the  argume?itum  e  silentio,  that  is, 
that  the  prophecies,  the  Psalms,  and  the  books  attributed  to 
Solomon  are  silent  in  regard  to  the  Pentateuch ;  the  neglect  of 
the  Pentateuchal  books  and  laws  by  the  Jewish  nation  ;  the  geo- 
graphical argument ;  the  philological  argument ;  the  difference 
between  the  Deuteronomic  and  the  Levitical  laws;  the  rapid 
increase  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt ;  the  impossibility  of  the 
erection  of  the  tabernacle  in  the  wilderness  for  the  want  of 
wealth  and  artistic  skill;  the  improbability  and  incredibility 
of  the  supernatural  events  which  the  book  records  ;  the  claimed 
anachronisms,  discrepancies,  contradictions,  fictions,  and  legends, 
classed  as  improbabilities,  incredibilities,  impossibilities,  absurd- 

^(Euvres  de  Voltaire,  Vol.  XIX.,  p.  61. 


20  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

ities,  and  falsities  which  are  charged  upon  the  book  by  critics 
in  our  day.  All  these  were  employed  by  our  famous  French- 
man. There  is  scarcely  an  argument  now  employed  bj^  the 
analysts  that  was  not  employed,  or  at  least  suggested,  by  him. 
His  treatment  of  the  subject  of  divine  inspiration  —  sometimes 
admitting  it,  sometimes  denying  it,  often  sneering  at  it,  and  all 
the  time  saying  that  it  is  in  no  way  affected  by  the  question  of 
Mosaic  authorship — constitutes  him  the  type  and  father  of  the 
analytic  critics  in  general,  some  of  whom  admit  the  divine  inspi- 
ration of  the  Pentateuch  and  other  portions  of  the  Bible,  while 
many  of  them,  and  the  ablest  of  them,  are  as  far  gone  in  unbe- 
lief as  the  great  infidel  critic  himself. 

In  regard  to  other  books  of  the  Bible,  the  views  of  Voltaire  are 
in  accord  with  those  of  the  analytics  ;  we  might  better  say,  their 
views  are  in  accord  with  his.  He  denies  that  Solomon  was  the 
author  of  the  Song  of  Songs,  Ecclesiastes,  or  the  Proverbs.  He 
denies  the  trustworthiness  of  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles 
as  mere  history.  In  regard  to  prophecy  and  the  prophets,  he 
propounds  the  views  now  held  by  the  most  thoroughgoing 
analysts,  but  he  does  this  in  his  usual  insidious  way.  He  says  : 
"God  forbid  that  I  should  wish  to  compare  the  Jewish  prophecies 
to  all  the  fortune-tellers  who  make  court  to  the  victorious,  and 
who  predict  what  has  happened  to  them.  I  remark  only  that  the 
Jews  produced  testimonials  of  their  nation  in  regard  to  Cyrus 
one  hundred  and  sixty  years  before  he  was  in  the  world."  He 
then  quotes  from  the  twenty-fifth  chapter  of  Isaiah  in  regard  to 
Cyrus,  and  remarks  that  some  learned  men  ( ' '  quelques  savants ' ' ) 
cannot  believe  that  God  would  confer  the  title  of  Christ  (Voltaire 
thus  translates  * '  anointed  "  )  on  a  profane  devotee  of  the  religion 
of  Zoroaster ;  and  that  these  savants  dare  to  say  that  these  pre- 
dictions concerning  Cyrus  were  gotten  up  after  the  occurrence 
of  the  events  to  which  they  relate.  "These  scholars,"  says  he, 
"appear  not  to  be  sufficiently  penetrated  with  esteem  for  the 
prophets.  Many  of  them  even  pretend  that  it  is  metaphysically 
impossible  to  see  clearly  the  future ;  that  to  speak  of  seeing  what 
is  not,  is  a  formal  contradiction  ;  that  the  future  is  not,  and 
consequently  cannot  be,  seen  ;  that  frauds  of  this  kind  are  in- 
numerable among  all  the  nations ;  and  that  it  is  necessary  to 
distrust  entirely  ancient  history.  .  .  .  These  learned  men  do  not 
respect  Daniel  more  than  Isaiah."  ^ 

^Didionnaire  Philosophique,  Article,  "Cyrus." 


HISTORY  OF  the;  DISCUSSION  21 

Thus  Voltaire  was  the  pioneer  critic  in  regard  to  ' '  the  histor- 
ical setting ' '  of  the  prophecies  and  in  denying  the  reality  of  all 
predictive  utterances.  In  these  matters  he  was  rather  more  con- 
sistent than  some  later  critics,  who  deny  the  Isaianic  authorship 
of  the  last  twenty-seven  chapters  of  Isaiah's  prophecy,  but  find 
themselves  compelled,  in  logical  consistency  with  their  own 
views  and  tests,  to  deny  the  Isaianic  authorship  of  much  that 
precedes.  Thus  it  is  in  dispute  among  them  whether  the 
twenty-first  chapter  of  Isaiah  refers  to  a  siege  of  Babylon  by 
the  Assyrians  in  Isaiah's  time,  or  to  the  siege  of  Babylon  by  the 
Medes  and  Persians  after  Isaiah's  time.  The  critics  who  take 
the  former  view  admit  Isaiah  to  be  the  author ;  those  who 
take  the  latter  view  claim  that  that  chapter  was  written  by  a 
post-exilic  author.  Even  Driver,  whom  Professor  Cheyne 
rebukes  for  his  timidity,  conservatism,  and  concessions  to 
orthodoxy,  remarks  that  more  recent  writers,  among  them 
Kuenen  and  Dillmann,  agree  in  supposing  it  to  refer  to  the 
conquest  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus,  and  hence  ascribe  it  to  a  prophet 
living  towards  the  close  of  the  exile.  ^  Thus  these  critics  adopt 
the  principle  laid  down  by  Voltaire  that  all  the  prophets  lived 
after  the  events  which  they  predict.  Even  such  critics  as  Driver 
and  Cheyne  assume  the  unreality  of  all  predictive  utterances,  and 
employ  it  as  a  test  to  determine  the  authorship  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecies,  just  as  did  the  infidel  critic  himself. 

In  regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, Voltaire  says  but  little.  He  treats  them,  however,  as 
fallible  and  errant.  In  both  these  respects  he  is  at  one  with 
the  analysts  of  our  age.  They  began  by  an  attack  upon  the 
Old  TcvStament.  After  a  time  they  withdrew,  like  repulsed  as- 
sailants, and  made  a  determined  assault  upon  the  authorship 
and  trustworthiness  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  This 
movement  has  in  turn  been  abandoned,  and  of  late  the  attack 
upon  the  Old  Testament  has  been  renewed.  These  critics  may 
be  compared  to  troops  failing  in  their  attacks  upon  a  fortified 
army.  They  attack  the  left  flank,  are  repulsed,  and  swing  round 
upon  the  right.  Not  still  succeeding,  they  swing  back  and 
renew  the  attack  upon  the  left.  And  now  the  heaviest  cannon- 
ading is  again  heard  along  the  line  of  the  Old  Testament.  In- 
deed, the  forces  are  now  again  concentrated  against  the  extreme 
left  of  the  fortified  encampment.     The  analysts  at  the  present 

1  Driver's  Introdiiction,  pp.  205,  206. 


22  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP  OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

time,  like  their  famous  leader,  are  making  the  Pentateuch  the 
chief  object  of  attack.  Repulsed  here  a  second  time,  will  they 
again  plant  their  batteries  against  the  New  Testament? 

Accuracy  requires  the  statement  that  a  few  points  embraced  in 
"the  higher  criticism"  are  not  presented  in  the  writings  of  Vol- 
taire. He  does  not  employ  the  varied  use  of  the  divine  names  in 
the  Pentateuch  as  an  argument  to  prove  the  combination  of  sev- 
eral documents,  by  different  authors,  in  the  composition  of  that 
book.  He  is  silent  in  regard  to  the  Book  of  Joshua,  and  also  in 
regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  Psalms.  Nor  does  he  fix  the 
dividing  line  between  Isaiah  I.  and  Isaiah  II.  precisely  at  the 
close  of  the  thirty-ninth  chapter.  But  he  presents  all  the  main 
points  of  the  analytic  criticism.  No  one  of  the  leading  critics 
presents  the  system  so  fully  as  he,  though  Reuss,  Graf,  Kuenen, 
and  Wellhausen  each  presents  certain  parts  of  it  more  elaborately 
and  fully.  Indeed,  these  and  other  critics  have  done  and  are 
doing  little  more  than  to  redact  the  hypotheses  and  arguments  of 
this  founder  of  the  analytic  criticism. 

The  critical  analysts,  however,  do  not  by  any  means  recognize 
Voltaire  as  the  founder  of  their  school.  Wellhausen  does, 
indeed,  say  that  Voltaire  was  the  first  to  call  in  question  the 
possibility  of  the  construction  of  the  tabernacle  in  the  wilder- 
ness.^ But  beside  this  scant  reference  to  him,  the  analysts 
ignore  him  and  their  indebtedness  to  him.  Nor  is  it  at  all 
strange  that  they  are  unwilling  to  say,  **We  have  Voltaire  to 
our  father." 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  leaders  among  them,  those  who 
have  thought  out  their  hypotheses  to  their  logical  conclusions, 
are  thoroughgoing  rationalists — veritable  infidels  ;  but  they  pre- 
fer not  to  be  recognized  as  such,  at  least  for  the  present.  Hence 
the  critics  are  ready  to  give  due,  perhaps  undue,  praise  to  Aben- 
Kzra,  Astruc,  or  anybody  else  that  in  former  times  made  a  sug- 
gestion in  any  way  favorable  to  their  system,  but  are  mostly 
silent  in  regard  to  its  famous  founder. 

The  views  of  Voltaire,  at  the  time  of  their  promulgation, 
attracted  a  good  deal  of  attention,  and  about  1771  a  book  was 
published  in  reply,  entitled,  ''  Letters  of  Some  Jews  to  Monsieur 
Voltaire."  This  book  is  characterized  by  wit  and  strength.  The 
aim  of  the  writers  was  to  repel    the  misrepresentations  and 

» **  Der  Gegensatz  ist  f riih  aufgefallen  und  hat  zuerst  Voltaire  Anlass  zu 
Zweifeln  gegehen."— Prolegomena,  p.  41. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   DISCUSSION  23 

caricatures  of  Voltaire  on  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Jewish 
race.  Yet  many  of  the  points  and  arguments  embraced  in  the 
analytic  criticism  are  well  handled.  Voltaire  is  shown  to  be  a 
villifier  as  well  as  an  unfair  reasoner.  He  replied  by  heaping  on 
the  writers  sarcasm  and  abuse,  in  six  letters,  published  in  the 
**  Dictionnaire  Philosophique."  ^ 

The  work  and  influence  of  Voltaire  as  a  biblical  critic,  though 
ungratefully  ignored  by  his  successors  and  followers,  have  been 
recognized  by  the  historian  Bancroft.  In  his  essay  on  "  German 
Literature,"  published  about  forty  years  ago,  he  made  the 
following  declaration : 

"There  is  one  branch  of  speculative  learning,  requiring  rare 
sagacity  and  deliberation,  and  cultivated  but  little  except  in 
Germany.  It  is  called  the  Higher  Criticism,  and  begins  its 
office  where  historical  criticism  ends.  Thus,  as  to  the  poems  of 
Homer,  all  the  evidence  which  we  possess  enables  us  only  to 
establish  the  essential  identit}'^  of  our  printed  copies  wnth  the 
edition  collated  and  published  by  the  Alexandrian  scholars. 
But  what  changes  may  have  taken  place  in  the  verse  previous  to 
that  period  ?  What  proof  have  we  that  the  Alexandrian  scholars 
had  an  uncorrupted  text?  The  same  kind  of  questions  has  been 
raised  in  theological  philology.  It  is  obvious  that  to  ask  them 
of  the  rash  is  only  to  throw  open  the  floodgates  of  literary  doubt. 
And,  in  fact,  there  has  been  left  hardly  one  eminent  author  of 
antiquity  who  has  not  been  cheated  out  of  part  of  his  fame. 
Sophocles  is  made  to  give  up  one  of  his  plays  ;  Plato,  half  of  his 
dialogues;  Anacreon,  almost  all  his  odes  ;  and  the  Iliad  and  the 
Odj^ssey  are  declared  to  be  full  of  interpolations,  the  shreds  and 
rags  of  audacious  sophists  patched  upon  the  simple  and  majestic 
robes  of  Homer.  The  too  great  prevalence  of  this  dangerous 
method  has  given  to  a  branch  of  science  an  air  of  skepticism, 
which  was  not  the  object  of  the  writers,  and  which  by  no  means 
exists  in  the  people." 

Thus  wrote  Bancroft  in  1855  concerning  the  havoc  which  "the 
higher  criticism"  had  made  in  Grecian  literature,  by  analyzing 
the  works  of  Homer,  Plato,  Sophocles,  Anacreon,  and  other 
authors  into  patchwork,  the  shreds  and  rags  of  supposed  redac- 
tors, interpolators,  and  audacious  sophists.  Let  it  be  observed 
that  Bancroft  remarks,  "The  same  kind  of  questions  has  been 
raised  in  theological  philology."     The  celebrated  historian  indi- 

1  Article,  "Juifs." 


24  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

cates  the  prominence  of  Voltaire  in  this  work  of  analysis,  both 
literary  and  theological,  by  the  following  remark:  "Voltaire, 
beginning  with  skepticism,  had  proceeded  to  the  work  of  analy- 
sis ;  and  in  the  general  proving  to  which  all  things  were 
subjected,  a  generation  seemed  resolved  on  considering  what 
was  to  be  thrown  away,  and  not  what  was  to  be  retained.  The 
Titans  went  forth  to  destroy  ;  and  in  the  overthrow  of  ancient 
superstitions,  forms  of  government,  and  thought,  the  old  world 
seemed  coming  to  an  end."^ 

The  dissemination  of  the  analytic  views  of  Voltaire  was  aided 
by  his  politic  course  and  the  circumstances  of  the  times.  He 
disavowed  hostility  to  the  Bible.  He  never  laid  aside  the  pro- 
fession and  garb  of  Christianity.  He  was  the  nominal  head  of 
a  religious  institution,  and  held  the  title  of  an  ofl&cer  of  the 
church. 

Soon  after  his  time  there  arose  in  Germany  a  class  of  men  just 
like  him,  nominal  members  of  the  church,  who  called  themselves 
Christians,  but  were  at  heart  infidels  or  atheists.  The  professors 
in  the  universities  were  largely  of  this  class  at  the  time  to  which 
we  refer.  Even  the  theological  professors  shared  in  the  preva- 
lent unbelief  and  irreligion.  Thus  there  was,  a  hundred  years 
ago  and  later,  in  the  universities  and  gymnasia  of  Germany,  a 
large  number  of  professors  who  were  entirely  suited  with  the 
biblical  criticism  of  Voltaire ;  men  calling  themselves  Christians 
and  holding  the  place  of  Bible  teachers  and  theological  profes- 
sors, yet  having  no  more  faith  in  the  Bible  and  Christianity  than 
in  Homer  and  the  Platonic  philosophy ;  perhaps  not  so  much. 
To  them  the  views  of  Voltaire  were  just  the  thing.  I^ike  him, 
they  could  study  and  discuss  the  age,  authorship,  and  composi- 
tion of  the  books  of  the  Bible,  and  ignore  or  .scout  its  doctrines 
of  sin  and  retribution,  atonement  and  pardon,  regeneration  and 
salvation.  Like  him,  they  could  theorize  in  a  literary  way  about 
the  Bible  as  about  the  pagan  authors,  attributing  to  it  no  more 
of  divine  inspiration  and  authority  than  to  them.  It  was  this 
class  of  men,  infidel  theologians  and  exegetes,  that  welcomed 
Voltaire  as  a  deliverer  and  gladly  accepted  the  analytic  criticism 
from  his  hands.  Thus  what  is  called  "the  higher  criticism"  was 
originated  by  the  savants  of  Europe  (scholars  and  philosophers), 
with  Voltaire  at  their  head,  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago. 

*  Bancroft's  Miscellanies,  pp.  118, 198. 


PART  11 
OBJECTIONS  CONSIDERED 


PART  II 
OBJECTIONS  CONSIDERED 

CHAPTER  1 
OBJECTIONS   IN   GENERAL 

The  burden  of  proof  rests  on  the  analytic  critics,  because : 

1.  There  is  an  antecedent  probability  in  favor  of  the  single 
authorship  of  Genesis  and  of  each  of  the  Pentateuch al  books. 
Joint  authorship  is  rare.  Almost  every  book  has  but  one  author. 
A  book  may  have  an  editor  and  annotator,  who  make  additions 
by  way  of  explanations,  notes,  and  references.  But  even  in  such 
cases  the  book  itself  is  the  production  of  a  single  mind.  Hence, 
in  regard  to  any  book  and  every  book,  before  examination,  and 
aside  from  all  positive  evidence  in  the  case,  there  is  a  presump- 
tion that  it  was  written  by  one  man. 

There  is,  however,  no  presumption  against  two  or  more  books 
having  the  same  author.  Many  an  author,  in  both  ancient  and 
modern  times,  has  produced  many  books.  And  if  several  books, 
though  anonymous,  relate  to  the  same  subjects,  are  ostensibly 
connected  with  one  another,  and  are  found  published  together, 
the  presumption  is  that  they  have  a  common  authorship.  There 
is,  then,  an  antecedent  presumption  that  Genesis,  and  every  other 
book  of  the  Pentateuch,  is  the  production  of  one  author.  And  as 
these  books  relate  to  the  same  subjects,  are  ostensibly  connected, 
each  succeeding  book  seeming  to  be  the  continuation  of  the  pre- 
ceding one,  and  are  found  published  together,  the  presumption 
is  that  they  were  all  produced  by  one  author. 

2.  Added  to  this,  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  is  the 
traditional  belief  This  was  the  belief  of  almost  all  antiquity, 
pagan.  Christian,  and  infidel.  Even  Celsus  and  Porphyry  con- 
ceded the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  though  Bleek 
does  indeed  claim  the  former  as  on  the  other  side.  ^ 

» lntroducti(m  to  the  Old  Testament,  Vol.  1.,  p.  5. 

27 


28  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP   OI^   THEJ    PENTATEUCH 

3.  Still  further,  the  testimony  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  is 
in  favor  of  the  traditional  view.  This  is  admitted  by  all  the 
analytic  critics,  except  some  of  the  less  advanced  ones,  who  have 
not  the  audacity  to  assert  fallibility  and  errancy  of  the  I^ord 
Jesus  Christ  in  biblical  matters,  and  hence  feel  constrained  to 
seek  a  way  out  of  the  difi&culty  by  denying  that  he  recognized 
Moses  as  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch. 

It  is  thus  shown  that  there  is  an  antecedent  presumption  that 
each  book  of  the  Pentateuch  taken  separately,  and  all  the  books 
taken  together,  had  but  one  author,  and  that  that  author  was 
Moses. 

In  these  circumstances,  the  analytic  critics,  who  maintain  that 
the  Pentateuch  is  the  product  of  many  minds,  ^lust  assume  the 
burden  of  proof.  They  must  positively  disprove  its  Mosaic 
authorship  or  lose  the  case.  They  join  issue  with  tradition,  with 
antiquity,  and  with  Christ  and  the  apostles,  and  they  are  bound 
to  meet  the  overwhelming  presumption  thus  created  against 
them  by  the  presentation  of  evidence  that  will  leave  no  room  for 
reasonable  doubt.  Clear  and  incontestable  proofs  are  demanded 
by  the  requirements  of  the  case.  The  extreme  probabilit}^  or 
rather  the  absolute  certainty,  that  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  made 
no  mistakes  and  encouraged  no  errors,  must  outweigh  all  the 
claims  of  learning  and  the  whole  array  of  critical  names  which 
the  analysts  may  present.  Such  argumentation  is  of  no  avail 
in  the  case.  Nothing  but  clear  and  conclusive  proof,  or  rather 
disproof — disproof  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch, 
will  answer. 

But  the  analytic  critics  have  already  presented  their  case. 
Their  evidence  and  arguments  are  in.  It  is  now  to  be  consid- 
ered whether  they  have  made  out  their  case.  Have  they 
disproved  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch?  Let  us 
weigh  their  arguments.  These  come  in  the  form  of  objections 
to  the  traditional  belief,  and  in  the  main  are  as  follows: 
Claimed  improprieties  of  thought  and  speech,  which,  it  is  sup- 
posed, Moses  would  have  avoided,  had  he  been  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch ;  claimed  anachronisms,  allotopisms,  discrepancies, 
contradictions,  and  difficulties ;  historical  untrustworthiness ; 
differences  in  style ;  the  centralization  of  worship ;  the  neglect 
and  violation  of  the  Pentateuchal  laws  ;  the  silence  of  succeed- 
ing books  in  regard  to  the  Pentateuchal  books  and  laws  ;  the 
finding  of  the  book  of  the  law  in  the  temple,  as  recorded  in  the 


OBJECTIONS  IN  GENERAIv  29 

twenty-second  chapter  of  the  Second  Book  of  Kings ;  the  char- 
acter of  the  Pentateuchal  laws  as  not  adapted  to  a  nomadic 
people,  camping  in  the  wilderness,  but  to  an  agricultural  people, 
dwelling  in  fixed  habitations. 

These  are  in  the  main  the  arguments  on  which  the  analysts 
rely  for  the  overthrowing  of  the  view  that  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch. 


CHAPTER  II 

CLAIMED  IMPROPRIETIES 

I.  One  of  the  objections  urged  against  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch  is  drawn  from  the  fact  that  it  speaks  of 
Moses  in  the  third  person.  The  objectors  assume  that  it  is 
improper  for  an  author  to  speak  of  himself  in  this  way,  and 
they  further  virtually  assume  that  Moses  was  infallible,  or  at 
least  that  it  is  incredible  that  he  committed  an  error  of  this 
kind.  But  for  an  author  to  speak  of  himself  in  the  third  person 
accords  with  Hebrew,  classical,  and  English  usage. 

Isaiah  ^  and  Jeremiah  ^  speak  of  themselves  in  the  third  person 
in  the  historical  portions  of  their  writings.  Bzekiel  does  not 
invariably  employ  the  first  person  in  speaking  of  himself  ^  The 
objectors,  of  course,  deny  that  Daniel  wrote  the  book  that  is 
called  by  his  name,  but  they  must  at  least  admit  that  the  author 
thought  there  was  no  impropriety  in  Daniel's  speaking  of  himself 
in  the  third  person ;  for  he  is  represented  as  doing  so.  *  All  the 
minor  prophets  speak  of  themselves  in  the  third  person,  and 
nearly  all  of  them  in  that  way  exclusively.  Such,  also,  is  the 
Style  of  Ezra,  5  though  he  also  speaks  of  himself  in  the  first  per- 
son. Nehemiah  sometimes  speaks  of  himself  in  the  third 
person. «  Josephus  employs  this  style.  "^  The  apostles  Matthew 
and  John  speak  of  themselves  in  the  third  person. «  It  is  thus  in 
evidence  that  it  was  the  prevailing  custom  among  the  Hebrew 
writers  to  speak  of  themselves  in  the  third  person.  It  is  not  sur- 
prising that  such  a  man  as  Thomas  Paine  should  object  to  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  on  the  ground  that  Moses 
is  spoken  of  in  it  in  the  third  person,^  but  what  shall  we  say 
when  we  find  a  biblical  scholar  like  Professor  W.  Robertson 

ilsa.l:l;  2:1;  7:3;  13:1;  20:2;  37:21;  38:1,4;  39:3-8. 
3Jer.l:l,2;  7:1;  11:1;  4:1;  18:1;  20:2,3;  25:1-3;  26: 1,2,7, 12,24;  28  :5, 
10-15 ;  32  : 1-6 ;  36 :  11-21 ;  38 : 1-28 ;  43 : 1-8 ;  51 :  59-61.  »  Ezek.  1 :  3. 

*  Dan.  10 : 1.  ^  Ezra  7  : 1,  6,  8, 10 ;  10 :  1,  6, 10, 16. 

«  Neh.  7  :  65,  70  ;  8  :  9  ;  10  : 1.  '  Wars  of  the  Jews,  2  :  20,  et  passim. 

« Matt.  9 :  9 ;  10  :  3  ;  John  19 :  23, 26, 27 ;  20 :  2 ;  21 :  7,  20-24. 
»  Palne's  Works,  p.  65.    ( Age  of  Season.) 

30 


Cly AIMED   IMPROPRIETIES  3 1 

Smith  declaring,  "One  asks  for  proof  that  any  Hebrew  ever 
wrote  of  himself  in  the  third  person  "  ?  ^     After  this,  what  next  ? 

It  is  well  known  that  many  of  the  classical  authors,  both 
Greek  and  Roman, — Xenophon,  Thucydides,  Julius  Caesar,  and 
others, — speak  of  themselves  in  the  third  person. 

This  style  of  speech  is  employed  also  by  many  of  the  best 
English  authors.  Cowper,  Kirk  White,  Hume,  Willis,  Holland, 
and  many  other  distinguished  writers  speak  of  themselves  in 
the  third  person.  ^  Professor  Sayce  often  employs  this  style.  ^ 
Professor  Briggs  speaks  of  himself  in  the  third  penson,  though 
he  seems  to  think  that  Moses  would  not  do  such  a  thing.* 

In  view  of  the  facts  above  presented,  the  objection  to  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  drawn  from  the  references 
in  it  to  Moses  as  a  third  person,  loses  all  its  force,  and  indeed  it 
even  seems  strange  that  it  should  be  employed  at  all. 

2.  A  second  objection  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch is  founded  upon  those  passages  which  speak  approvingly 
of  Moses  ;  such  as,  "Now  the  man  Moses  was  very  meek,  above 
all  the  men  which  were  upon  the  face  of  the  earth  " ;  ^  "  Moses 
the  man  of  God " ;  ^  "  And  there  arose  not  a  prophet  since  in 
Israel  like  unto  Moses,  whom  the  Lord  knew  face  to  face  " ; '  and 
some  others  of  similar  tone.  ^ 

This  objection  is  employed  by  most  of  the  analytic  critics  from 
Paine  ^  to  Wellhausen.^*'  They  virtually  assume  that  Moses 
could  not  have  committed  any  impropriety,  at  least  that  of 
saying  about  himself  such  things  as  are  contained  in  these  pas- 
sages. Indeed,  there  are  two  assumptions  necessary  to  the 
validity  of  the  objection.  One  is  that  Moses  would  not  or  could 
not  speak  commendatorily  of  himself;  and  the  other  assump- 
tion is  that  these  passages  were  not  added  to  the  original  writing 
of  Moses  by  an  editor  or  redactor.  The  analysts  very  quietly 
make  the  former  assumption,  though  they  declare  Moses  to 
have  been  a  semi-barbarian  among  barbarians ;  and  they  just  as 
quietly  make  the  latter  assumption,  although  they  claim  that 
there  are  interpolations  and  other  additions  by  revisers  and 
redactors  scattered  all  through  the  Pentateuch.     But  let  these 

*  Old  Testament  in  the  Jeivish  Church,  p.  321. 
=  See  prefaces  to  their  works. 

^Hittites,  p.  90  ;  Fresh  Light  from  the  Ancient  Monuments,  p.  81. 

*  Higher  Criticism  oj  the  Hexateuch,  Pref . ;  also  p.  39.  *  Num.  12 :  3, 

«  Deut.  33 :  1.  •>  Deut.  34 :  10.  e  Num.  12  :  6, 7 ;  Ex.  33 :  11. 

*Age  of  Reason,  pp.  66,  66.     ^<»  Prolegomena,  Das  Problem,  p.  10. 


32  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

assumptions  pass.     It  is  curious  to  see  men  who  scout  plenary- 
inspiration  and  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture  turn  round  and  vir- 
tually claim  infallibility  and  inerrancy  for  Moses,  in  order  to 
prove  that  he  did  not  write  certain  passages  in  the  Pentateuch. 
Now,  in  reply  to  the  objection,  we  remark  as  follows  : 

( 1 )  There  was  nothing  improper  in  Moses  writing  all  that  these 
passages  contain  concerning  himself.  He  had  proclaimed  him- 
self * '  a  man  of  God. ' '  He  claimed  to  have  a  special  commission 
from  the  Almighty.  He  had  done  mighty  deeds  and  miracles  in 
the  name  and  by  the  power  of  Jehovah.  He  had  spoken  with 
God  face  to  face.  It  was  a  very  small  thing  to  claim  to  be  a 
man  of  God  and  the  friend  of  God,  after  having  been  forty  days 
and  nights  in  the  divine  presence  on  the  mount,  and  carrying 
with  him  back  to  his  people  so  much  of  the  divine  glory  shining 
from  his  face  as  to  dazzle  all  beholders.^  The  skeptical  objector 
probably  denies  all  this  as  being  supernatural.  But  if  so,  he 
rejects  the  history  of  Moses  and  with  it  the  entire  historical 
character  of  the  Pentateuch.  If  the  history  of  Moses  is  a  lie, 
and  if  he  was  not  such  as  he  is  represented  to  be,  it  was,  of 
course,  very  wrong  for  him  to  claim  to  be  a  man  of  God  and  that 
God  had  talked  with  him  face  to  face  as  with  a  friend.  In 
that  case,  however,  he  was  guilty  of  something  much  worse 
than  vanity  or  immodesty.  But  if  the  history  of  Moses  is  not 
to  be  set  aside  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  discussion,  if 
"the  historical  setting"  in  this  case  is  not  to  be  transformed 
into  a  falsehood  or  a  thing  of  naught  by  the  mere  waving  of  the 
critic's  hand,  if  the  story  of  the  exodus,  of  the  crossing  of 
the  Red  Sea,  and  of  the  giving  of  the  law  is  to  count  for  anything 
as  history,  there  was  no  more  impropriety  in  the  claims  and  pro- 
fessions of  Moses  than  in  Michael  or  Gabriel  announcing  himself 
an  angel  of  God.  The  fallacy  in  the  objector's  reasoning  is  his 
antecedently  assuming  that  the  Pentateuchal  history  is  false. 

(2)  Such  claims  as  Moses  made  concerning  himself  (in  case  he 
is  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch)  are  presented  by  others  else- 
where in  the  Scriptures.  Daniel  reports  that  the  angel  Gabriel 
addressed  him  in  these  words:  "Thou  art  greatly  beloved,"  and, 
"O  Daniel,  a  man  greatly  beloved. "2  Nehemiah  puts  on  record 
the  fact  that  he  received  no  salary,  but  paid  into  the  national 
treasury  one  thousand  drams  of  gold,  and  did  not  eat  the  bread 
of  the  governor.     He  then  exclaims,  "Think  upon  me,  my  God, 

1  Ex.  34 :  28-35.  2  Dan.  9 :  23 ;  10 :  II. 


ClyAIMED    IMPROPRIETIES  33 

for  good,  according  to  all  that  I  have  done  for  this  people."^ 
When  advised  to  retire  into  the  temple  for  safety,  in  a  time  of 
danger,  he  exclaimed,  "Should  such  a  man  as  I  flee?"^  The 
apostle  John  records  the  fact  five  times  that  he  was  * '  the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved. "^  Renan,  one  of  the  destructive  critics, 
brings  this  charge  against  the  beloved  disciple,  that  "on  every 
page  the  intention  is  betrayed  of  showing  that  he  was  the  favor- 
ite of  Jesus."*  Paul,  in  comparing  himself  with  the  other 
apostles,  hesitated  not  to  say,  "  I  labored  more  abundantly  than 
they  all";  and  in  what  he  himself  calls  "this  confidence  of 
boasting,"  he  exclaimed,  "In  nothing  am  I  behind  the  very 
chiefest  apostles."^  Aside  from  supernatural  inspiration,  the 
probability  that  Moses  would  or  would  not  make  certain  declara- 
tions is  to  be  determined  rather  by  the  usage  of  other  Hebrew 
authors  than  by  the  judgment  and  assumptions  of  the  theorizing 
and  argumentative  critics  of  modern  times. 

(3)  As  to  the  declaration  of  Moses  that  he  was  the  meekest  of 
living  men : 

(a)  Meekness,  which  includes  humility,  w^as  not  considered 
praiseworthy  in  ancient  times.  Until  Christianity  had  leavened 
the  world  with  its  teaching,  the  meek,  humble  man  was  regarded 
as  mean-spirited.  Certainly  Moses  could  have  gained  neither 
admiration  nor  respect  by  declaring  himself  to  be  the  meekest 
of  men.  It  required  genuine  humility  and  self-denial  to  be  will- 
ing to  make  such  a  declaration.  The  critics  err  in  judging  of 
this  matter  by  the  more  enlightened  modern  Christian  times. 

(<5)  It  was  proper  that  a  record  should  be  made  of  the  meek- 
ness of  Moses.  Formerly  he  was  irascible,  hasty,  and  head- 
strong, as  is  shown  by  his  killing  the  Egyptian  and  by  his 
repeated  refusal  to  obey  God's  call  to  deliver  his  people.^  Since 
these  facts  were  recorded,  it  was  a  fitting  thing  that  it  should 
also  be  recorded  that  by  the  grace  and  discipline  of  God  he  after- 
ward became  the  meekest  of  men.  We  can  readily  believe  that 
he  had  the  divine  guidance  and  approval  in  making  this  record 
for  the  improvement  of  mankind. 

{c)  Protestations  of  humility  and  meekness  are  among  the 
things  in  regard  to  which  taste  and  custom  are  continually 
changing.     Daniel  Webster,  who  was  not  deficient  in  self-appre- 

1  Neh.  5 :  14-19.  ^Neh.  6:11. 

3  John  13 :  23  ;  19 :  26 ;  20 : 2  ;  21 : 7, 20.  *  Life  of  Jems,  p.  26. 

61.  Cor.  15 :  10 ;  II.  Cor.  11 :  17 ;  12 :  11.  ^ex.  2  •.  12 ;  3 :  11-22 ;  4 : 1-14. 
3 


34  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

elation  and  self-respect,  in  his  reply  to  Hayne,  declared  himself 
the  humblest  man  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States — "holding 
myself  to  be  the  humblest  of  the  members  here. ' '     The  gentle- 
men of  the  old  school — such  as  Washington  and  Jefferson  —  were 
in  the  habit  of  closing  their  letters  with  the  words,  "Your  most 
obedient  and  humble  servant."     Professor  Driver  tries  to  discard 
the  custom  of  the  employment  of  the  third  person  to  designate 
oneself,  and  in  his  preface,  on  about  three-fourths  of  the  space 
of  the  first  page,  octavo  size,  he  employs  the  pronoun  /  seventeen 
times.     He  does  not  consistently  adhere  to  this  egotism,  but 
sometimes  refers  to  himself  in  the  third  person.^     Kuenen  em- 
ploys "the  proud  monosyllable"  seventy-two  times,  and  other 
forms  of  the  first  person  of  the  pronoun  —  me,  my,  and  myself — 
fifteen  times  in  about  thirty-nine  pages  of  his  introduction  to 
his  work  on  the  Hexateuch.    All  this  is  largely  a  matter  of  taste. 
We  do  not  say  these  authors  are  lacking  in  modesty,  but  their 
egotism  appears  to  some  people  less  becoming  than  anything 
that  is  contained  in  the  Pentateuch.     Perhaps,  in  the  coming 
years,  critics  will  maintain  that  these  authors  could  not  have  writ- 
ten the  books  attributed  to  them,  or  that  the  egotistical  passages 
were  by  later  hands  inserted  in  the  books  in  order  to  discredit 
them.     Had  Moses  made  as  frequent  use  of  the  first  person  of  the 
pronoun  as  they,  perhaps  critics  would  have  cited  the  frequency  of 
its  use  as  indubitable  proof  that  he  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch. 
(4)  The  declaration  that  "there  arose  not  a  prophet  since  in 
Israel  like  unto  Moses,  whom  the  Lord  knew  face  to  face,"^  is 
admitted  on  all  hands  not  to  have  been  written  by  Moses,  since 
it  is  contained  in  the  passage  which  gives  an  account  of  his 
death  and   burial.     Dr.   Kautzsch's   German  Bible  refers  this 
declaration  to  Dt,  but  Driver  to  the  combined  authorship  of  JE. 
These  critics,  though  differing  as  to  the  authorship  of  it,  agree 
in  holding  that  it  was  written  by  another  hand  than  that  which 
mainly  wrote  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.  ^    That  this  declaration 
was  written,  as  itself  implies,  a  good  while  after  the  death  of 
Moses,  is  not  incompatible  with  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  Deuter- 
onomy as  a  whole.     Also,  the  parenthetic  clause  concerning  the 
meekness  of  Moses  may  have  been  inserted  by  a  hand  other 
than  the  one  which  wrote  all  the  rest  of  the  Book  of  Numbers. 

^Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  xii.,  18,  notes. 
2  Deut.  34  :  10. 

'Kautzsch  and  his  coworkers  represent  the  Deuteronomic  author  by  D, 
not  Dt. 


CHAPTER  III 

CLAIMED  ANACHRONISMS 

TherK  are  in  the  Pentateuch  many  passages  which  are 
claimed  by  the  analytic  critics  as  referring  to  events  that 
occurred  after  the  time  of  Moses.  They  argue,  and  correctly, 
too,  that  a  writing  must  be  later  than  any  event  mentioned  in 
it.^  But  this  argument  from  claimed  anachronisms,  as  employed 
by  the  critics,  involves  two  fallacies.  One  of  these  consists  in 
putting  particular  passages  for  the  entire  book  in  which  they  are 
found.  The  critics  virtually  reason  thus :  Moses  did  not  write  a 
certain  passage  or  certain  passages;  therefore  he  did  not  write 
the  Pentateuch.  The  viciousness  of  their  logic  is  the  more 
glaring  because  of  their  almost  invariably  assuming  that  pas- 
sages which  stand  in  the  way  of  their  hypotheses  are  additions 
made  to  the  original  writing  by  later  hands.  Another  fallacious 
proceeding  of  the  critics  in  their  contention  about  Pentateuchal 
anachronisms  is  their  employment  of  the  very  history  which 
they  decry  as  untrustworthy.  In  their  desire  and  effort  to  fix 
the  writing  of  some  passage  or  book  after  the  occurrence  of  a 
particular  event,  they  take  that  event,  as  to  character,  time,  and 
place,  just  as  it  is  related  in  the  Pentateuch. 

But  let  us  examine  the  passages  cited  to  prove  anachronisms. 

I.  "And  the  Canaanite  was  then  in  the  land"; ^  "And  the 
Canaanite  and  the  Perizzite  dwelt  then  in  the  land."  ^ 

It  is  implied  in  these  passages  that  there  was  a  time  when  the 
nations  mentioned  were  not  in  the  land,  and  the  analytic  critics, 
Voltaire,  Reuss,  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  and  others,  claim  that 
this  implied  time  was  subsequent  to  the  conquest  of  Canaan  by 
the  Israelites.  In  this  way  they  endeavor  to  make  out  an  anach- 
ronism and  to  prove  that  the  Book  of  Genesis  was  written  long 
after  the  time  of  Moses.  But  these  critics  virtually  inject  the 
word  stz'll  into  these  texts,  and  read,  "The  Canaanite  was  then 
still  in  the  land";  "The  Canaanite  and  the  Perizzite  were  then 

^  This  applies  to  history,  but  not  to  prophetic  utterances. 
«  Gen.  12:6.  »  Gen.  13:7. 

35 


36  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

still  dwelling  in  the  land."  Reuss,  indeed,  translates  the  first 
passage  thus:  **Bien  que  les  Canan6ens  fussent  alors  dans  ce 
pays"^  (although  the  Canaanites  were  then  in  this  country)  — 
a  fair  enough  translation.  But  in  a  marginal  note  he  remarks, 
* '  Que  le  mot  alors  serait  bien  etrange  dans  la  bouche  de  Moise ' '  ^ 
("The  word  theii  ["alors"]  is  strange  in  the  mouth  of  Moses"). 
Thus  Reuss  and  other  analysts  read  into  the  passage  the  idea  ex- 
pressed by  the  word  still,  or  yet.  But  the  original  Hebrew  word 
means  simply  then,  or  at  that  time.  It  is  so  defined  by  Gesenius, 
who  refers  to  one  of  these  passages,  and  it  is  so  translated  else- 
where. The  sacred  historian  merely  states  that  Abram  arrived 
at  Moreh  and  that  the  Canaanite  was  at  that  time  in  the  land ; 
that  a  strife  arose  between  Abram' s  herdmen  and  those  of  lyot, 
and  that  at  that  time  the  Canaanite  and  Perizzite  were  dwelling 
in  the  land.  The  implication  is  that  the  Canaanite  and  Perizzite 
were  already  in  the  land  before  the  arrival  of  Abram  and  Lot, 
and  not  that  these  people  had  disappeared  from  the  country  at 
the  time  of  the  conquest.  Indeed,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  con- 
tinued in  the  country  after  the  conquest,  for  it  is  expressly  stated 
that  the  Canaanites  continued  to  dwell  "in  mount  Lebanon, 
from  mount  Baal-hermon  unto  the  entering  in  of  Hamath ' ' ;  and 
that  after  the  conquest  ' '  the  children  of  Israel  dwelt  among  the 
Canaanites,  Hittites,  and  Amorites,  and  Perizzites,  and  Hivites, 
and  Jebusites."^  Our  analytic  critics,  contrary  to  the  plainest 
historical  statements,  imagine  that  there  were  no  Canaanites  nor 
Perizzites  in  Canaan  after  the  conquest.  They  appeal  to  history, 
which  they  have  already  decried  as  incorrect  and  untrustworthy, 
and  even  that  they  misquote  and  misrepresent. 

There  was  a  time,  however,  when  there  were  no  Canaanites 
nor  Perizzites  in  the  land.  That  was  a  time  previous  to  the 
immigration  of  Abraham.  On  his  arrival  he  found  them  there. 
They  were  there  then.  As  to  how  long  they  had  been  there  or 
how  long  they  remained,  the  passage  gives  no  information.  The 
anachronism  exists  only  in  the  imagination  of  the  analysts. 

2.  An  anachronism  is  claimed  also  in  the  references  to  the 
city  of  Hebron.  It  is  mentioned  as  existing  in  the  time  of 
Abraham.  The  references  to  it  are  as  follows:  "Then  Abram 
removed  his  tent,  and  came  and  dwelt  in  the  plain  of  Mamre, 
which  is  in  Hebron,  and  built  there  an  altar  unto  the  lyord";^ 

^L'Hisioire  Sainte  et  la  Loi,  Vol.  I.,  p.  342. 

2  Judg.  3  :  a,  5.  =»  Gen.  13  :  18. 


CLAIMED    ANACHRONISMS  37 

"And  Sarah  died  in  Kirjath-arba ;  the  same  is  Hebron  in  the 
land  of  Caanan";^  "And  after  this,  Abraham  buried  Sarah  his 
wife  in  the  cave  of  the  field  of  Machpelah  before  Mamre  :  the 
same  is  Hebron  in  the  land  of  Canaan" ;2  "And  Jacob  came 
unto  Isaac  his  father  unto  Mamre,  unto  the  city  of  Arba,  which 
is  Hebron,  where  Abraham  and  Isaac  sojourned ";3  "And  they 
[the  spies]  ascended  by  the  south,  and  came  unto  Hebron  ;  where 
Ahiman,  Sheshai,  and  Talmai,  the  children  of  Anak,  were. 
(Now  Hebron  was  built  seven  years  before  Zoan  in  Egypt.)"  ;* 
"And  the  name  of  Hebron  before  was  Kirjath-arba  ;  which  Arba 
was  a  great  man  among  the  Anakims."^ 

Thus  in  Joshua  the  statement  is  that  the  former  name  of 
Hebron  was  Kirjath-arba  ;  but  it  is  designated  as  Hebron  in  the 
time  of  Abraham  and  in  the  time  of  the  spies.  The  inference  of 
some  of  the  critics  is  that  Kirjath-arba  was  not  called  Hebron 
until  it  was  given  by  Joshua  to  Caleb,  the  son  of  Jephunneh,  and 
that  therefore  all  these  references  to  Kirjath-arba  as  Hebron  must 
have  been  written  after  the  conquest  and  division  of  Canaan, 
hence  not  by  INIoses.  Reuss  presents  this  argument  very  adroitly. 
After  declaring  the  Book  of  Joshua  to  be  utterly  untrustworthy, 
he  could  not  well  quote  it  to  prove  the  incorrectness  of  Genesis  and 
Numbers.  But  he  translates  both  the  expressions,  "the  same  is 
Hebron,"  and  "which  is  Hebron,"  by  the  phrase,  "anjourd'hui 
Hebron"  ("at  this  time  Hebron"),  putting  the  words  in 
parentheses.  In  a  marginal  note  he  describes  Hebron  as  "the 
chief  place  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,"  not  recognizing  its  existence 
in  the  time  of  Abraham  at  all.«  In  this  way  Reuss  assumes  and 
insinuates  that  all  the  references  to  Hebron  in  Genesis  were 
written  by  an  author  who  lived  long  after  the  time  of  Moses. 

We  do  not  object  to  putting  the  above-mentioned  clauses  in 
parentheses ;  for  they  are  in  their  nature  parenthetic,  and  prob- 
ably the  original  writer  would  have  enclosed  them  in  parenthetic 
signs  if  such  signs  had  been  in  use  in  his  time.  Nor  do  we 
object  to  the  suggestion  that  these  clauses  were  inserted  in  the 
original  document  by  a  redactor.  But  our  position  is  that  this 
redactor  may  have  lived  in  the  time  of  Moses,  or  may  have  been 
Moses  himself.  For  Hebron  may  have  been  the  original  name 
of  the  city,  to  which  Kirjath-arba  was  afterward  added,  this 
second  name  being  dropped  at  the  time  of  the  conquest  and 

1  Gen.  23:2.  »  Gen.  23:19.  'Qen.  35:27.  *  Num.  13:22. 

»  Josh.  14  :  15.         6  L'Hutoire  Sainte,  Vol.  I.,  p.  344. 


38  MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE    PENTATEUCH 

division  of  Canaan,  as  related  in  Joshua.  ^  Even  Bleek,  who 
cites  Genesis  13  :  18  as  containing  an  anachronism,  virtually  sur- 
renders the  point  by  adopting  this  suggestion.  ^ 

We  have  now,  however,  in  this  matter  much  more  than  the 
suggestion  of  a  possibility.  The  archaeologists  have  shown  that 
the  possible  in  this  case  is  not  only  the  probable,  but  the  real. 
They  have  demonstrated  that  a  century  before  the  exodus  Pales- 
tine was  a  province  of  the  Egyptian  empire,  and  that  cities  and 
places  with  which  we  are  so  familiar  in  the  Scriptures — Jerusa- 
lem, Megiddo,  Taanach,  Gibeah,  Kishon,  Hebron,  and  nearly  all 
the  rest — were  well  known  to  the  oflB.cials  of  the  Egyptian  gov- 
ernment.* Hebron  is  one  of  the  places  mentioned  in  the  Egyp- 
tian monuments.  "The  spring  of  Hebron"  is  mentioned  as 
one  of  the  places  in  Palestine  conquered  by  Rameses  II.  It  is 
also  found  in  the  inscriptions  among  the  places  conquered  by 
Rameses  III.*  It  is  generally  agreed  by  Egyptologists  that 
Rameses  II.  was  the  Pharaoh  of  the  oppression.  It  is  thus  in 
evidence  that  in  the  century  preceding  the  exodus  there  was  in 
Palestine  a  town  famous  for  its  springs,  called  Hebron,  a  place  of 
sufficient  importance  to  be  named  among  the  conquests  of  one 
of  the  greatest  of  the  Egyptian  kings.  There  is  no  anachronism, 
then,  in  the  references  made  to  this  place  in  Genesis.  The  writer 
of  Genesis  calls  it  Hebron,  though  he  says  that  in  his  time  it 
was  also  called  Kirjath-arba.  He  intimates,  however,  that 
Hebron  was  the  original  and  better  known  name,  for  when  he 
speaks  of  the  time  of  the  building  of  the  town  he  calls  it 
Hebron,  not  Kirjath-arba.  Whenever  he  uses  the  latter  name, 
he  informs  his  readers  that  he  means  Hebron.  ^  Now  the  Egyp- 
tian monuments,  as  above  mentioned,  prove  that  in  the  time  of 
Moses,  and  before  his  time,  there  was  a  city  or  town  in  Canaan 
called  Hebron.  The  monuments  are  as  yet  silent  as  to  Hebron 
being  for  a  time  called  also  Kirjath-arba.  But,  as  matters  are 
now  going,  perhaps  the  next  steamer  that  comes  across  the 
Atlantic  will  bring  word  that  the  excavators  in  Palestine  or 
Egypt  have  discovered  evidence  of  the  double  name.  In  the 
meantime,  this  much  has  already  been  ascertained,  that  before 
the  time  of  Moses  the  city  was  known  by  the  name  of  Hebron, 
which  refutes  the  charge  of  anachronism. 

1  Josh.  14 :  15.  ^Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament^  Vol.  I.,  p.  231. 

*  Brugsch-Bey,  Egypt  Under  the  Pharaohs,  chs.  8, 11 ;  Sayoe,  Higher  Oritidsm 
and  the  Monuments,  pp.  52,  53, 176, 186. 

*  Sayce,  tdem,  p.  188,  note.  »  Gen.  23 ;  2 ;  35  •.  27. 


CI.AIMED    ANACHRONISMS  39 

3.  "  Pursued  them  unto  Dan. ' '  ^ 

It  is  claimed  that  here  '  *  Dan ' '  is  employed  to  designate  in  the 
time  of  Abraham  a  city  that  did  not  receive  that  name  until 
more  than  three  hundred  years  after  the  time  of  Moses. '^  Vol- 
taire, Paine,  Reuss,  and  other  analytic  critics  so  maintain. 

The  argument  of  the  critical  objectors  in  this  case  is  made  up 
of  inconsistencies  and  assumptions.  Though  they  have  much 
to  say  about  redactions,  interpolations,  and  mistakes,  and  the 
resultant  uncertainties,  in  the  Pentateuch  and  elsewhere  in 
the  Bible,  they  nevertheless  accept  with  unwavering  confidence 
the  account  of  the  change  of  the  name  of  I^aish  to  Dan,  in  the 
books  of  Joshua  and  Judges.  They  assume  that  Laish  was  not 
formerly  called  Dan,  just  as  Kirjath-arba  was  originally  called 
Hebron,  the  name  which  it  afterward  again  received.  They 
assume  that  there  was  only  one  city  Dan,  that  is,  Laish-Dan, 
which  the  Danites  took  by  force,  and  named  after  their  ancestor. 
These  critical  objectors  further  assume  that  Dan,  as  mentioned 
in  Genesis,  was  a  city,  though  it  was  not  so  called,  and  though 
Josephus  expressly  says  that  it  here  designates  one  of  the  forks 
of  the  Jordan,  Jor  being  the  name  of  the  other.  ^  Totally  ignor- 
ing the  statement  of  Josephus,  the  objectors  assume  that  Dan 
was  a  city,  that  there  was  but  one  city  called  Dan,  that  it  was 
not  called  Dan  before  it  was  captured  by  the  Danites,  and  that 
the  name  * '  Dan ' '  was  not  substituted  in  Genesis  by  a  redactor 
copyist  for  "Laish." 

4.  '  •  And  these  are  the  kings  that  reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom, 
before  there  reigned  any  king  over  the  children  of  Israel."* 

It  is  maintained  that  the  writer  of  this  passage  must  have 
lived  after  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy  among  the  Israel- 
ites—  at  least  four  hundred  years  after  Moses.  Such  is  the 
ground  taken  by  Voltaire,  Paine,  Reuss,  and  Wellhausen.  Paine 
affirms  that  this  passage  proves  that  Genesis  was  not  written 
until  the  time  of  Saul,  and  that,  as  the  words  "any  king"  imply 
more  than  one,  we  are  brought  to  the  time  of  David  at  least. 
Reuss  expresses  the  same  view  with  disdainful  confidence  :  "Du 
reste,  I'auteur  qui  a  redige  cette  liste  n'a  pas  vecu  avant 
I'epoque  de  David  et  de  Solomon.  On  devrait  enfin  ne  plus  se 
donner  le  ridicule  de  nier  cela."*^  ("Finally,  the  author  who 
reduced  this  list  to  writing  did  not  live  before  the  time  of  David 

» Gen.  14  :  14.  »  Josh.  19  :  47  ;  Judg.  18 :  27-29.  '^Antiquities,  1  :  10 :  1. 

*aen.  36 :  31.  'L'Histaire  Sainte,  VoL  I.,  p.  411. 


40  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OP   THE)    PENTATEUCH 

and  of  Solomon.     People  ought  no  longer  to  make  themselves 
ridiculous  by  denying  that."  ) 

Notwithstanding  the  overweening  confidence  of  these  critics, 
there  is  something  to  be  said  on  the  other  side. 

( 1 )  Saul  was  not  the  first  Israelitish  king.  It  is  a  matter  of 
express  and  plain  record  that  Abimelech,  the  son  of  Gideon,  was 
king  in  Israel  more  than  two  centuries  before  the  time  of  Saul. 
The  Book  of  Judges  reads  as  follows  :  ' '  And  all  the  men  of 
Shechem  gathered  together,  and  all  the  house  of  Millo,  and  went 
and  made  Abimelech  king,  by  the  plain  of  the  pillar."  ^  Nor 
was  the  authority  of  Abimelech  limited  to  one  city  or  one  tribe ; 
for  it  is  further  recorded  that  Abimelech  reigned  over  Israel 
three  years.  It  is  not,  indeed,  recorded  that  he  was  regularly 
and  permanently  established  as  king,  nor  that  his  kingly 
authority  was  universally  acknowledged.  But  it  is  recorded 
that  Abimelech  reigned  over  Israel  three  years.  ^  This  fills  the 
description  in  Genesis  36:31:  "before  there  reigned  any  king 
over  the  children  of  Israel," — any  king,  regular  or  irregular, 
permanent  or  temporary.  Thus,  instead  of  bringing  us  down  to 
the  time  of  Saul  or  David,  as  these  critics  so  confidently  assert, 
this  passage  does  not  bring  us  within  two  centuries  of  that  time. 

(2)  Nor  does  this  passage  really  bring  us  to  a  time  later  than 
Moses;  for  there  w^as  a  king  in  Israel  in  the  time  of  Moses — 
Moses  himself  The  title  of  king  is  expressly  given  him .  * '  Moses 
commanded  us  a  law,  even  the  inheritance  of  the  congregation  of 
Jacob.  And  he  was  king  in  Jeshurun,  when  the  heads  of  the 
people  and  the  tribes  of  Israel  were  gathered  together. ' '  ^  Moses 
was  recognized  as  king  even  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Hebrew 
nation.  Balaam,  the  son  of  Beor,  said,  "He  hath  not  beheld 
iniquity  in  Jacob,  neither  hath  he  seen  perverseness  in  Israel: 
the  Lord  his  God  is  with  him,  and  the  shout  of  a  king  is  among 
them. ' '  ■*  Moses  at  this  time  was  the  head  and  ruler  of  the  nation, 
and  must  be  the  king  to  whom  Balaam  referred. 

Moses  and  after  him  Joshua  were  more  kingly  in  character  and 
position  than  the  chiefs  or  emirs  that  reigned  in  Edom  before 
any  king  reigned  in  Israel.  These  Edomite  kings,  a  list  of 
whom  is  given,  were  not  hereditary  rulers,  for  no  one  of  them 
was  the  son  of  his  predecessor,  and  they  lived  in  different  cities. 
It  is  evident  that  they  were  such  kings  as  Jephthah  and  Gideon 
among  the  Israelites.     Reuss  virtually  admits  all  this  in  saying : 

1  Judg.  9  :  6.  2  Judg.  9  :  22.  3  Deut.  33 :  4,  5.  "  Num.  23  :  21. 


CLAIMED    ANACHRONISMS  4I 

"II  ne  s'agit  pas  ici  d'une  monarchic  hereditaire,  mais  d'une 
succession  de  chefs  ou  emirs  (militaires  et  electifs)  places  a  la 
tete  d'une  confederation  de  tribus.  On  pourrait  comparer  cette 
forme  de  governement  a  celle  qu'on  suppose  d'ordinaire  aux 
Israelites  du  temps  des  juges,  mais  a  I'egard  de  ceux  la  la 
critique  historique  fait  ses  reserves."^  ("The  reference  is  not 
to  a  hereditary  monarchy,  but  to  a  succession  of  chiefs  or  emirs, 
military  or  elective,  placed  at  the  head  of  a  confederation  of 
tribes.  This  form  of  government  may  be  compared  to  that  which 
may  be  regarded  as  common  among  the  Israelites  during  the 
time  of  the  judges,  but  in  regard  to  the  latter  the  critical  histo- 
rian makes  his  reservations.")  Well,  then,  the  Edomite  chiefs 
or  emirs  are  called  kings  in  our  passage,  and  the  corresponding 
magistrates  among  the  Israelites,  called  judges,  are  styled  kings 
also;  and  among  these  irregular  magistrates  must  be  included 
Moses,  who  was  the  greatest  king  of  them  all. 

Besides  these  facts,  which  indicate  that  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration may  have  been  written  in  the  time  of  Moses,  and  even 
by  Moses  himself,  there  are  some  positive  considerations  which 
suggest  that  the  writer  must  have  lived  before  the  establishment 
of  the  monarchy.  A  writer  who  lived  after  that  event  would  not 
be  likely  to  use  the  word  "king"  as  he  does,  applying  it  to  the 
chiefs  of  the  Edomites  and  to  the  irregular  magistrates  of  the 
Israelites  called  judges.  This  use  of  the  word  points  to  a  time 
when  there  were  only  irregular  and  temporary  magistrates. 

Besides,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  writer  of  the  passage 
under  consideration  was  contemporary  with  Hadar,  the  last  men- 
tioned king  of  the  Edomites,  ^  for,  though  the  death  of  each  one  of 
his  predecessors  is  mentioned,  his  is  not.  Neither  is  his  successor 
mentioned.  Yet  the  name  of  his  city  is  given,  and  his  wife's  name, 
and  her  mother's,  and  her  grandfather's,  or,  possibly,  her  grand- 
mother's. A  writer  disposed  to  enter  thus  into  particulars  would 
doubtless  have  recorded  the  death  of  Hadar,  had  he  not  been  still 
living.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  account  of  the 
Edomite  kings  given  in  Chronicles  is  the  same  with  that  in  Gen- 
esis, except  that  in  the  former  the  death  of  Hadar  (Hadad)  is 
mentioned.  ^  All  these  facts  are  accounted  for  by  the  view  that 
Hadar  was  still  living  when  the  list  of  Edomite  kings  in  Genesis 
was  made  out,  but  had  died  before  the  writer  in  Chronicles  made 
a  copy  of  it. 

^L'Histoire  Sainte,  Vol  I.,  p.  411.  a  Gen.  36:  39.  ^i.  chr.  1 :  43-54. 


42  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

Still  further,  the  word  ' '  king ' '  is  used  in  this  wide  sense  in  the 
Book  of  Judges.  The  phrase,  "when  there  was  no  king  in 
Israel,"  so  often  employed  in  that  book,  refers  by  way  of  con- 
trast, not  to  the  subsequent  times  of  the  monarchy,  but  to 
the  preceding  times,  when  Moses,  Joshua,  and  other  efficient 
judges  exercised  central  authority.  The  expression,  "when 
there  was  no  king  in  Israel,"  points  to  a  time  when  there  was  a 
suspension  of  the  national  authority  through  the  inefficiency  of 
the  judge,  or  in  consequence  of  there  being  temporarily  no  judge 
at  all. 

The  hypothesis  that  Moses  wrote  this  passage  in  the  assured 
belief  that,  in  accordance  with  divine  promise  and  prophecy, 
there  would  be  an  established  line  of  monarchs  in  Israel  in 
succeeding  times,  is  not  necessary,  but  is  more  reasonable  than 
the  view  of  Reuss  and  others,  who  make  the  word  "king"  in 
one  clause  of  the  verse  ^  mean  elective  military  chiefs ;  and  in  the 
other,  established  hereditary  monarchs.  Certainly  Moses  was 
more  of  a  king  than  any  of  the  Edomite  captains,  and  he  is 
expressly  called  a  king.  Our  passage,^  then,  means  that  there 
were  established  and  recognized  rulers  among  the  Kdomites 
before  there  were  any  such  among  the  Israelites,  that  is,  before 
the  time  of  Moses. 

5.  Another  anachronism  is  claimed  in  the  use  of  the  name 
* '  Moriah ' '  to  designate  the  place  where  Abraham  was  directed  to 
offer  up  Isaac.  2  It  is  maintained  that,  according  to  the  chron- 
icler, the  name  was  unknown  until  the  time  of  David.  ^  Voltaire, 
quoting  from  Aben-Kzra,  sets  forth  the  fact  that  Moriah  is  called 
the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  as  a  reason  for  holding  that  the  Penta- 
teuch was  reduced  to  writing  long  after  the  time  of  Moses.* 
Reuss  thinks  it  very  natural  that  an  attempt  should  be  made 
to  give  a  sort  of  anticipative  consecration  to  the  place  on  which 
the  temple  was  built.  ^  Both  he  and  Voltaire  refer  to  the  chron- 
icler *  in  proof  of  the  claimed  anachronism. 

We  reply :  ( i )  That  the  analytic  critics  pronounce  the  chron- 
icler to  be  utterly  untrustworthy  as  a  historian,  but  here  one  of 
his  incidental  statements  is  brought  confidently  forward  to  prove 
a  chronological  inaccuracy  in  the  Book  of  Genesis. 

(2)  The  statement  in  Chronicles  shows  only  that  Mount 
Moriah  was  chosen  as  the  site  of  the  temple  because  David  had 

>  Gen.  86:  31.  »  Gen.  22:  2.  »1I.  Chr.  3:1. 

*2Va^  swr  IblSranoe^  Melanges,  p.  452.  ^UHisUnre  Sainte,  Vol.  1.,  p.  300. 


CI< AIMED    ANACHRONISMS  43 

sacrificed  there,  not  that  the  name  began  to  be  used  in  David's 
time. 

(3)  It  is  in  evidence  that  there  was  a  "mount  of  God"  ^  in 
Palestine  long  before  the  time  of  Moses.  In  the  list  of  Pales- 
tinian cities  conquered  by  Thothmes  III.  is  the  name  "Har-el" 
("mount  of  God"),  which  has  been  identified  with  the  geograph- 
ical position  of  Jerusalem,  as  is  shown  by  Professor  Sayce,  in  his 
late  work.  ^  It  is  thus  proved  that  more  than  two  centuries  before 
the  exodus  there  was  a  mountain  called  the  mount  of  God  in  the 
region  of  Jerusalem,  corresponding  to  the  Mount  Moriah  of 
Genesis. 

(4)  Even  Reuss,  after  bringing  forward  this  argument  appar- 
ently with  his  customary  assurance,  virtually  admits  its  inva- 
lidity, as  follows  :  "Le  texte  parle  de  Tune  des  montagnes  de  la 
terre  de  Moriah,  et  les  anciennes  versiones  n'ont  pas  toutes  un 
nom  prope  ici"^  ("The  text  speaks  of  one  of  the  mountains 
of  the  layid  of  Moriah,  and  not  all  the  ancient  versions  have  the 
proper  name  here  "  ). 

6.  Anachronism  is  claimed  in  the  reference  to  "the  book  of 
the  wars  of  the  I^ord.""^ 

The  objectors  urge  that  this  book  did  not  exist  until  after  the 
time  of  Moses.  Voltaire  says,  "  Comment  Moise  auasit-il  cite  le 
livre  des  guerres  du  Seigneur,  quand  ces  guerres  et  ce  livre  perdu 
lui  sont  posterieurs  ?  "  ^  (  "  How  could  Moses  quote  the  wars  of 
the  Lord,  when  these  wars  and  this  lost  book  were  subsequent  to 
his  time  ?  " )  Reuss  also  affirms  that  the  wars  of  the  Lord  began 
only  in  the  last  year  of  the  life  of  Moses,  and  that  materials 
could  not  have  been  furnished  for  such  a  book  while  the  Israel- 
ites were  still  far  from  the  Jordan." 

The  denial  of  the  existence  of  this  book  in  the  time  of  Moses, 
on  the  ground  that  the  wars  of  the  Lord  had  not  yet  taken  place, 
furnishes  another  remarkable  example  of  the  ignoring  of  Jewish 
history.  There  were  many  wars  of  the  Lord  before  the  Israelites 
came  to  the  Jordan. 

(l)  There  was  the  war  at  the  Red  Sea,  where  the  Lord  did  all 
the  fighting,  and  where,  after  the  war  was  over,  the  Israelites 
sang  songs  in  honor  of  the  conqueror:  "The  Lord  is  a  man  of 
war' ' ; '    "  Sing  ye  to  the  Lord,  for  he  hath  triumphed  gloriously; 

*  Qen.  22:  14.  ^Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,  pp.  186, 187. 

^L'HisUnre  Sainte,  Vol.  I.,  p.  370.  «Num.  21 :  14. 

'  Dictionnaire  Philosophique,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  65. 
'L'Histaire  Sainte,  Vol.  I.,  Int.,  p.  128.  ''Ex.  15 :  3. 


44  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

the  horse  and  his  rider  hath  he  thrown  into  the  sea. ' '  ^  Here  was 
material  for  the  book  of  the  wars  of  the  Lord. 

(2)  Then  there  was  the  war  of  the  Amalekites,  which  took 
place  in  less  than  three  months  after  the  exodus.  Joshua  led 
the  Israelites  in  battle,  while  Moses  sat  on  the  top  of  the  hill 
with  the  rod  of  God  in  his  hand,  Aaron  and  Hur  staying  up  his 
hands  until  Amalek  was  discomfited.  ^  Here  was  more  material 
for  the  book  of  the  wars  of  the  Lord.  ' '  And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  Write  this  for  a  memorial  in  a  book,  and  rehearse  it  in 
the  ears  of  Joshua.  "^ 

( 3  )  Next  came  the  war  of  Hormah,  where  a  southern  tribe  of 
Canaanites  made  an  attack  on  the  Israelites  and  captured  some 
of  them.  The  tide  of  war  at  first  was  against  the  Israelites,  but 
they  made  vows  in  order  to  gain  the  victory,  and  in  the  end 
destroyed  their  assailants  and  their  cities.  * 

(4)  The  fourth  war  was  with  Sihon,  king  of  the  Amorites, 
who  made  an  attack  on  the  Israelites.  But  they  smote  him  and 
his  people,  and  took  their  cities  and  lands.  ^ 

(5)  After  this  Og,  the  king  of  Bashan,  and  all  his  people 
went  out  to  Edrei  to  battle  against  Israel.  But  they  smote  him 
and  his  people,  and  took  possession  of  his  country.^ 

(6)  '  The  sixth  war  was  with  the  Midianites.  In  accordance 
with  the  direction  of  Moses,  twelve  thousand  Hebrew  warriors 
went  against  them,  slew  all  the  males,  took  thirty-two  thousand 
captives,  burnt  all  the  cities  and  castles,  captured  six  hundred 
and  seventy-five  thousand  sheep,  seventy-two  thousand  beeves, 
and  sixty-one  thousand  asses.' 

All  these  wars  took  place  before  the  death  of  Moses,  and  yet 
some  critics  declare  that  there  were  not  materials  sufficient  for  the 
making  up  of  the  book  of  the  wars  of  the  Lord.  It  is  true  that 
some  of  these  wars  took  place  near  the  close  of  the  life  of  Moses  ; 
but  he  may  have  revised  his  writings  near  the  close  of  his  life 
and  inserted  this  reference  to  the  war-book.  Perhaps  Moses  was 
the  author  of  it.  It  appears  that  he  was  divinely  recognized  as 
the  most  suitable  person  to  write  such  a  book.^  At  all  events, 
it  is  shown  that  the  wars  of  the  Lord  began  before  the  Israel- 
ites were  fairly  out  of  Egypt,  and  that  a  book  of  the  wars  was 
begun  in  less  than  three  months  after  the  exodus.  Within  these 
three  months,  forty  years  before  the  death  of  Moses,  two  famous 

1  Ex.  15 :  21.  « Ex.  17  :  8-13.  ^  ex.  17  :  14.  «  Num.  21 : 1-3. 

"Num.  21 :  21-31.   « Num.  21 :  33-35.      'Num.  31 : 1-47. 


CI^AIMED    ANACHRONISMS  45 

wars — the  Egyptian  and  Amalekite — had  been  finished,  and 
were  already  celebrated  in  song  and  history.  Four  other  wars 
were  waged  and  finished  before  Moses  died.  The  contention, 
then,  of  Voltaire,  Reuss,  and  other  critics  that  a  book  of  the  wars 
of  the  lyord  could  have  been  written  only  after  the  death  of  Moses 
is  shown  to  be  groundless. 

7.  A  similar  argument  has  been  drawn  from  the  references  to 
the  Book  of  Jasher.^  It  is  claimed  that  inasmuch  as  this  is 
quoted  in  Joshua,  and  yet  contains  some  of  the  compositions  of 
David,  2  the  Book  of  Joshua  must  have  been  written  after  the 
time  of  David.  ^  And  as  the  analj^tic  critics  unite  in  thought 
the  Book  of  Joshua  with  the  five  preceding  books,  and  call  the 
whole  the  Hexateuch,  they  thus  derive  an  argument  to  prove 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  not  written  till  long  after  the  time  of 
Moses.  But  even  if  it  be  admitted  that  the  reference  in  Samuel 
indicates  that  the  Book  of  Jasher  contained  some  of  David's 
compositions,  which  is  by  no  means  certain,  it  does  not  follow 
that  it  did  not  exist  in  the  time  of  Joshua,  because  the  book, 
though  existing  in  Joshua's  time,  may  have  afterward  contained 
songs  written  by  David.  A  collection  of  national  songs  was  sure 
to  receive  additions  from  age  to  age.  The  Book  of  Psalms  was 
formed  in  this  way.  The  mode  of  argumentation  adopted  by 
these  anti-Mosaic  critics  would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
Davidic  psalms  were  written  after  the  exile.  The  Book  of  Jasher, 
then,  may  have  existed  in  the  time  of  Joshua  and  of  Moses,  and 
have  had  additions  made  to  it  in  the  time  of  David.  The  men- 
tion of  this  book,  therefore,  in  times  previous  to  David  does  not 
prove  anachronism. 

8.  "And  the  children  of  Israel  did  eat  manna  forty  years, 
until  they  came  to  a  land  inhabited ;  they  did  eat  manna  until 
they  came  unto  the  borders  of  the  land  of  Canaan."  ^ 

Inasmuch  as  it  is  stated  in  the  Book  of  Joshua  that  the  manna 
ceased  after  the  Israelites  crossed  the  Jordan,^  and  since  Moses 
died  before  that  event,  it  is  maintained  that  the  writer  of  the 
above  passage  must  have  lived  after  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan 
and  after  the  death  of  Moses.  This  is  one  of  the  arguments  that 
Voltaire  appears  to  have  overlooked  ;  but  Paine,  Reuss,  and  other 
critics  make  use  of  it.     Reuss's  presentation  of  it  is  as  follows  : 

**Ce  n'est  la  qu'un  premier  sujet  de  douter.     Des  le  d^but  il 

» Josh.  10 :  13.       2 11.  Sam.  1 :  17-27.       ^  Reuss,  UHistoire  Sainte,  Vol.  I.,  p.  128. 
*Ex.  16:35.  ^josh.  5:12. 


46  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OI^   THEJ    PENTATEUCH 

est  parl^  de  choses  qui  n'arrivent  qu'd  la  fin  du  voyage. 
Kxodus  i6 :  35,  nous  lisons  que  les  Israelites  se  sont  nourris  de 
manne  jusqu'a  ce  qu'ils  fussent  arrives  dans  leur  nouvelle  patrie. 
In  efifet,  Joshua  5:12  affirme  que  la  pluie  de  manne  cessa  cinq 
jours  apres  le  passage  du  Jordain,.  c'esta-dire  au  plus  tot  six 
semaines  apr6s  la  mort  de  Moise  (Deut.  34:  8;  Josh,  i:  11;  2:  32; 
4:  19).  Mais  le  texte  de  I'Exode  parle  au  passe  defini,  et  non 
au  futur."  ^  ("We  have  here  only  a  prime  subject  of  doubt. 
At  the  very  start,  things  are  mentioned  that  happened  only  at 
the  close  of  the  journeying.  In  Exodus  16  :  35  we  read  that  the 
Israelites  are  fed  by  manna  until  they  have  come  into  their  new 
country.  It  is,  in  effect,  affirmed  (Josh.  5:  12)  that  the  rain  of 
manna  ceased  five  days  after  the  passage  of  the  Jordan,  that  is 
to  say,  more  than  six  weeks  after  the  death  of  Moses.  But  the 
text  of  Exodus  speaks  of  the  past  definite,  not  of  the  future.") 
The  argumentation  of  Reuss  is  not  conclusive : 

( 1 )  It  is  no  proof  of  inaccuracy  or  of  untrustworthiness  that 
things  which  took  place  at  the  close  of  the  journeying  are  men- 
tioned in  Exodus.  In  history,  especially  in  Bible  history,  events 
are  not  always  related  in  their  chronological  order ;  nor  does  a 
departure  from  chronological  order  create  doubt  or  suspicion, 
except  in  the  minds  of  analytic  critics  and  skeptics. 

(2)  Moses  may  have  written  the  Book  of  Exodus  at  the 
beginning  of  the  wandering,  and  inserted  this  passage  2  near 
the  close  of  his  life  on  a  final  review.  There  is  nothing  improper 
in  an  author's  redacting  his  own  writings. 

(3)  The  passage  does  not  speak  of  the  cessatio7i  of  the  manna 
at  all.  It  states  merely  that  the  Israelites  ate  manna  forty  years, 
and  that  they  ate  it  until  they  came  to  an  inhabited  country  — 
the  borders  of  Canaan.  There  is  not  a  word  about  the  cessation 
of  the  manna,  nor  even  of  the  Israelites'  ceasing  to  eat  it.  The 
declaration  that  the  Israelites  ate  manna  until  they  came  to  the 
borders  of  Canaan  may  seem  to  imply  that  then  they  ceased,  and 
the  objector,  of  course,  supposes  that  they  ceased  to  eat  manna 
at  that  time  because  they  could  not  get  it ;  and  he  further  sup- 
poses that  their  inability  to  get  it  resulted  from  its  ceasing  to 
fall.  But  there  is  not  a  word  of  all  this  in  the  text.  It  affirms 
merely  that  the  Israelites  ate  manna  until  they  came  to  the 
borders  of  Canaan;  but  this  does  not  necessarily  imply  that 
then  they  ceased  to  eat  it.    When  the  Hebrew  said,  "I  will  call 

1  L'Histoire  Sainte,  Vol.  1.,  Int.,  p.  127.  «  Ex.  16  :  35. 


CLAIMED    ANACHRONISMS  47 

on  God  as  long  as  I  live,"  or,  "I  will  call  on  God  until  I  die,'* 
he  did  not  mean  that  then  he  would  cease  to  call  on  God.  When 
a  man  and  woman,  at  marriage,  solemnly  engage  to  love  one 
another  until  death,  there  is  no  implied  promise  that  they  will 
cease  to  love  each  other  when  they  die. 

Though,  then,  the  manna  ceased  after  the  crossing  of  the 
Jordan  and  six  weeks  after  the  death  of  Moses,  there  is  nothing 
in  this  passage  that  might  not  have  been  written  by  him.  The 
utter  silence  of  the  author  of  this  passage  concerning  the  cross- 
ing of  the  Jordan,  the  entrance  into  Canaan,  and  the  actual 
cessation  of  the  manna  suggests  that  he  died  before  these  events 
took  place,  and  that  if  he  were  not  Moses,  he  at  least  lived  in 
the  Mosaic  age. 

But  if  our  passage  does  indeed  imply  that  the  manna  ceased 
when  the  Israelites  came  to  the  borders  of  Canaan  and  before 
the  death  of  Moses,  still  there  is  here  no  anachronism,  but  a 
mere  discrepancy  between  Exodus  and  Joshua  as  to  time.  The 
objector,  of  course,  here  gives  the  preference  to  the  Book  of 
Joshua,  however  much  he  may  decry  in  general  its  historical 
accuracy.  But,  after  all,  may  not  the  ceasing  to  eat  manna  have 
begun  as  soon  as  the  Israelites  reached  the  border  of  Canaan, 
and  the  manna  continued  until  after  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan .? 
There  is  a  distinction  to  be  made  between  the  ceasing  to  eat 
manna  and  the  ceasing  of  the  manna  itself.  People  who  had 
been  eating  manna  nearly  forty  years  would  embrace  the  very 
first  opportunity  to  procure  other  food. 

9.  "The  Horims  also  dwelt  in  Seir  beforetime ;  but  the  chil- 
dren of  Esau  succeeded  them,  when  they  had  destroyed  them 
from  before  them,  and  dwelt  in  their  stead ;  as  Israel  did  unto 
the  land  of  his  possession,  which  the  I/ord  gave  unto  them."  ^ 

The  analytic  critics  maintain  that  this  passage  refers  to  the 
conquest  of  Canaan  as  an  accomplished  fact,  and  therefore  could 
not  have  been  written  by  Moses.  Reuss  says,  "On  remarquera 
qu'il  y  est  question  de  la  conquete  de  la  Palestine  comme  d'un 
fait  passe "2  ("It  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  question  here  is 
concerning  the  conquest  of  Palestine  as  a  past  fact").  Kuenen 
sententiously  refers  to  this  passage  to  show  that,  according  to 
the  historical  standpoint  of  the  writer,  Canaan  was  already  in 
the  possession  of  Israel.^ 

According  to  this  view,  Moses,  who  died  before  the  conquest, 

» Deut.  2  :  12.  »  UBiilmre  Sainte,  Vol.  I.,  p.  278.  ^  Hezateuch,  pp.  34-36. 


48  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

cannot  be  the  author  of  this  passage.  Our  contention,  however, 
is  that  this  passage  refers  to  conquests  made  before  the  death  of 
Moses. 

(i)  The  Israelites  had  conquered  the  Amorites,  taken  their 
land,  and  dwelt  in  all  their  cities  and  villages.^ 

(2)  Next  they  destroyed  Og,  the  king  of  Bashan,  and  his 
people.  The  record  states  that  they  left  none  of  his  sons  or  of 
his  people  alive,  and  possessed  his  land.  ^ 

(3)  The  subjugation  of  the  Midianites  furnishes  a  third 
example  of  conquest  and  spoliation.  Israel  made  war  upon 
them,  killed  the  men,  took  the  women  and  children  captive, 
burnt  the  cities  and  castles,  and  seized  the  cattle,  sheep,  and 
goods.  ^ 

In  addition  to  all  these  conquests,  before  the  death  of  Moses 
all  east  Palestine  had  been  subdued,  and  with  his  consent  and 
by  his  direction  was  divided  up  among  the  two  and  a  half  tribes. 
During  the  last  two  years  of  Moses'  life  the  south  Canaanites,* 
the  Amorites,  and  Midianites  were  destroyed ;  King  Arad,  King 
Sihon,  King  Og,  and  five  kings  of  Midian  were  slain,  their 
armies  annihilated,  their  cities  burned,  their  goods  plundered, 
and  their  lands  (except  those  of  the  Midianites)  seized,  divided, 
and  held  as  a  permanent  possession.  In  this  way  was  treated 
the  whole  transjordanic  region.  In  view  of  these  facts,  Moses 
might  well  say  orally,  and  afterward  in  writing,  that  the  Edom- 
ites  destroyed  their  predecessors  and  seized  their  lands,  "as 
Israel  did  to  the  land  of  his  possession,  which  the  lyord  gave 
unto  them." 

We  suggest  two  changes  in  the  English  translation,  one  of 
which  the  original  requires,  and  the  other  of  which  it  allows. 
The  first  is  the  omission  of  the  article  before  the  word  "land" 
(as  there  is  no  article  in  the  original);  and  the  other  is  the 
substitution  of  the  present-perfect  tense  of  the  verb  for  the 
past.  The  sentence  will  then  read  as  follows:  "As  Israel  has 
done  to  land  of  his  possession."  The  error  of  the  critics  is  in 
understanding  "the  land  of  his  possession"  to  mean  all  the  land 
of  his  possession.  The  omission  of  the  article  in  English,  as  in 
the  original  Hebrew,  makes  more  evident  the  error. 

10.     Deuteronomy  3 :  11,  the  account  of  Og's  iron  bedstead. 

The  critics  claim  that  though  Og,  the  giant  king,  was  slain  in 
the  last  year  of  Moses'  life,  in  this  passage  his  bedstead  is 

1  Num.  21 :  23-31.         2  Num.  21 :  33-35.         »  Num.  31 :  1-12.         *  Num.  21 :  1. 


CIvAIMED    ANACHRONISMS  49 

mentioned  as  a  thing  of  antiquity,  and  therefore  the  passage 
must  have  been  written  long  after  Mosaic  times.  This  is  the 
view  presented  by  Voltaire,^  Paine, ^  Reuss,  Kuenen,  and  many 
others.  Reuss  comments  as  follows :  "A  Rabbah  on  montrait 
le  pretendu  lit  de  fer  du  geant  Og,  qui  avait  ete  tue  dans  I'annee 
meme  de  la  mort  de  Moise,  et  le  texte  (Deut.  3:  ii)  fait  remar- 
quer  comme  une  chose  memorable  que  ce  lit  existe  encore.  En 
general,  tout  ce  chapitre,  ainsi  que  le  precedent,  raconte  les 
evenements  de  cette  meme  annee  comme  si  c'etaient  des  faits 
appartenant  a  une  epoque  lointaine."  ^  ("At  Rabbah  is  shown 
the  pretended  iron  bedstead  of  the  giant  Og,  who  had  been  killed 
in  the  very  year  of  Moses'  death,  and  the  text  (Deut.  3:  11) 
mentions  it  as  a  memorable  thing  that  this  bedstead  still  exists. 
In  general,  this  entire  chapter,  as  also  the  preceding,  relates  the 
events  of  this  same  year  as  if  they  were  facts  pertaining  to  a 
distant  period.")  Kuenen  oracularly  writes,  "Og's  bed,  a  relic 
of  antiquity."* 

The  basis  of  the  argument  in  this  case  is  wholly  imaginary. 
There  is  not  one  word  in  this  passage  to  indicate  that  the  iron 
bedstead  was  a  very  old  one,  or  that  Og  had  been  a  long  time 
dead.  Even  the  formula  "unto  this  da}^"  is  not  found  here. 
The  only  thing  mentioned  as  extraordinary  is  the  size  of  the 
bedstead,  and  even  this  is  adduced  merely  to  prove  that  Og  was 
truly  a  giant.  For  anything  that  is  said  in  the  passage,  the  bed- 
stead may  not  have  been  a  3"ear  older  than  when  its  gigantic 
owner  last  lay  upon  it.  Its  antiquity  is  wholly  an  achievement 
of  the  critical  imagination.  The  critics  practice  eisegesis  on  the 
text  first,  and  then  proceed  to  the  work  of  exegesis. 

II.     "Unto  this  day." 

This  phrase  is  employed  very  often  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  is 
cited  by  the  analysts  to  prove  that  many  of  the  passages  in 
which  it  is  found  cannot  have  been  written  in  the  time  of  Moses. 
They  claim  that  it  suggests  a  period  of  many  years  as  interven- 
ing between  the  age  of  Moses  and  the  time  in  which  the  passages 
containing  this  formula  were  written.  The  following  passage 
from  Deuteronomy  may  serve  as  an  example:  "Jair  the  son  of 
Manasseh  took  all  the  country  of  Argob  unto  the  coasts  of 
Geshuri  and  Maachathi,  and  called  them  after  his  own  name, 
Bashan-havoth-jair,   unto  this  day."  ^     It  is  claimed  that  the 

^  Dictionnaire  Philosophique,  Article  "  Moses."  *  Age  of  Reason,  p.  75. 

^VHistoire  Sainte,  Vol.  1.,  p.  130.  *Hezateuch,  p.  37.  ^  Deut.  3 :  14. 

4 


50  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OI^   THE    PENTATEUCH 

formula  * '  unto  this  day ' '  indicates  a  long  lapse  of  time  previous 
to  the  time  of  the  writer,  and  that,  as  Moses  lived  only  a  short 
time  after  the  transactions  referred  to  took  place,  he  cannot  be 
the  writer  of  this  passage.  Many  other  passages  in  the  Penta- 
teuch contain  this  phrase,  and  if  it  necessarily  implies  a  long 
lapse  of  time  the  most  of  them  must  have  been  written  long 
after  the  time  of  Moses. 

Now  Reuss  affirms  that  '  *  unto  this  day ' '  always  implies  antiq- 
uity. His  words  are,  "La  formule  implique  toujours  la  notion 
de  I'antiquite"^  ("The  formula  always  implies  the  notion  of 
antiquity").  If  the  critic  had  only  paid  a  little  attention  to  the 
exegesis  of  the  phrase,  he  certainly  would  not  have  made  this 
affirmation.  Genesis  19 :  37,  38 :  "Moab  .  .  .  the  father  of  the 
Moabites  unto  this  day.  .  .  .  Ben-ammi  .  .  .  the  father  of 
the  children  of  Ammon  unto  this  day."  Here  present  time  is 
indicated,  or  at  least  the  sacred  writer  did  not  mean  to  say  that 
Moab  had  been  the  father  of  the  Moabites  for  a  long  time,  and 
that  Ben-ammi  had  been  a  long  time  the  father  of  the  Ammonites. 
Genesis  48 :  15  :  "The  God  which  fed  me  all  my  life  long  unto 
this  day."  Here  "unto  this  day"  means  present  time,  and, 
though  preceding  time  is  indeed  referred  to,  it  is  expressed  by 
the  words  "all  my  life  long."  Numbers  22:30:  "Am  not  I 
thine  ass,  upon  which  thou  hast  ridden  ever  since  I  was  thine 
unto  this  day?"  The  time  referred  to  here  is  not  antiquity,  nor 
a  long  period,  but  merely  the  time  since  the  ass  had  come  into 
Balaam's  possession,  at  most  only  a  few  years,  and  this  is 
expressed  by  the  words  "ever  since  I  was  thine,"  while  "unto 
this  day"  refers  only  to  present  time.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
discuss  the  character  of  the  occurrence  here  mentioned,  nor  to 
inquire  whether  the  ass  spoke,  if  it  spoke  at  all,  in  the  Hebrew 
language.  We  have  the  record  in  Hebrew,  and  doubtless  the 
language  employed  accords  with  good  Hebrew  usage.  Joshua 
22:3:  Joshua  said  unto  the  two  and  a  half  tribes,  "Ye  have 
not  left  your  brethren  these  many  days  unto  this  day."  The 
time  here  referred  to  is  the  time  in  which  the  Israelites  were 
engaged  in  conquering  Canaan,  that  is,  about  seven  years,  and 
is  here  expressed  by  the  words  "these  many  days,"  while  "unto 
this  day,"  as  usual,  here  means  present  time.  I.  Samuel  29 :  6,  8 : 
Achish  said  to  David,  "I  have  not  found  evil  in  thee  since  the 
day  of  thy  coming  unto  me  unto  this  day."     David,  in  his  reply, 

*  UHistoire  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  130. 


ClyAIMED    ANACRHONISMS  $1 

said :  ' '  But  what  have  I  done  ?  and  what  hast  thou  found  in  thy 
servant,  so  long  as  I  have  been  with  thee  unto  this  day?"  Here 
our  formula  again  means  simply  up  to  the  present  timey  while  the 
preceding  time  is  indicated  by  other  words.  In  this  case 
the  period  designated  is  only  a  year  and  four  months,  for  that 
was  the  time  David  had  spent  in  the  land  of  the  Philistines.^ 
I.  Samuel  12:2:  Samuel  said  to  his  countrymen,  "I  have 
walked  before  you  from  my  childhood  unto  this  day."  Here, 
once  more,  not  antiquity,  not  a  long  period,  but  a  single  lifetime 
is  meant,  and  that  is  expressed  by  the  whole  phrase  "from  my 
childhood  unto  this  day,"  which  is  equivalent  to  "from  my  child- 
hood to  the  present  time." 

On  examination,  then,  we  find  (i)  that  the  words  "unto  this 
day"  do  not  of  themselves  imply  antiquity,  nor  a  long  period, 
but  are  often  employed  when  the  implied  time  is  brief,  the  life- 
time of  a  man,  the  lifetime  of  an  ass,  seven  years,  sixteen 
months,  or  a  still  shorter  period;  (2)  that  when  any  period  of 
time,  longer  or  shorter,  is  designated,  it  is  not  done  by  the 
formula  "unto  this  day,"  but  by  added  words  or  phrases;  and 
(3)  that  this  formula  is  precisely  equivalent  to  "unto  the  present 
time."  Thus,  the  phrase  "from  my  childhood  unto  this  day" 
is  equivalent  to  "from  my  childhood  until  now. 

Kuenen,  a  man  of  more  sober  judgment  than  Reuss,  though 
perhaps  even  more  dogmatic,  sets  entirely  aside  the  dictum  of 
the  latter  quoted  above,  and  virtually  concedes  the  futility  of  the 
argument  derived  from  this  formula  by  declaring  ' '  that  there  is 
nothing  in  this  expression  absolutely  to  preclude  the  Mosaic 
date,"  and  by  giving  up  all  the  passages  containing  this  formula 
in  Genesis  and  all  but  three  in  Deuteronomy  ^  as  not  necessarily 
referring  to  times  later  than  Moses.  ^  Even  in  regard  to  the 
argument  as  founded  on  these  three  passages,  he  weakens  (a 
thing  very  unusual  with  him),  as  is  indicated  by  the  following 
declaration:  "At  any  rate,  the  use  of  the  formula  '  even  to  this 
day'  inclines  us  to  place  the  writers  of  the  Hexateuch  long  after 
the  times  of  Moses  and  Joshua."  * 

It  is  not  strange  that  Kuenen,  after  having  given  up  all  but 
three  of  the  passages  containing  this  formula,  should  onlj^  be 
incliyied  to  rely  on  these  as  proving  the  Pentateuch  to  have  been 
written  long  after  the  time  of  Moses.     One  of  these  passages  is 

1 1.  Sam.  27  :  7.  «  Deut.  3  :  14  ;  10 :  8 ;  34  :  6. 

'  Hexateuch,  p.  36.  *  Hexateuch,  p.  34. 


52  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

Deuteronomy  34 :  6,  where  the  writer,  speaking  of  the  burial  of 
Moses,  says,  ' '  But  no  man  knoweth  of  his  sepulcher  unto  this 
day."  As  we  have  shown,  so  far  as  this  passage  itself  is  con- 
cerned, it  may  have  been  written  within  a  year  or  even  within  a 
month  after  the  death  of  Moses.  The  writer  merely  states  that 
at  the  time  he  wrote  no  one  knew  of  the  sepulcher  of  Moses,  but 
does  not  even  intimate  that  Moses  had  been  long  dead. 

Another  passage  which  Kuenen  declines  to  give  up  entirely  is 
Deuteronomy  10 :  8,  where  it  is  stated  that,  at  a  former  time,  the 
tribe  of  Levi  was  appointed  "to  stand  before  the  Lord  to  minis- 
ter unto  him,  and  to  bless  in  his  name,  unto  this  day."  We  have 
an  account  of  this  separation  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  in  the  third 
chapter  of  Numbers,  nearly  forty  years  before  the  words  recorded 
in  this  passage  purport  to  have  been  spoken  by  Moses.  But,  as 
we  have  shown,  Moses  might  have  used  the  same  phraseology, 
even  though  that  event  had  taken  place  only  a  year  or  two 
before.  According  to  Kuenen' s  view,  the  writer  of  Deuteronomy 
puts  improper  phraseology  in  the  mouth  of  Moses,  representing 
him  as  using  words  near  the  time  of  the  occurrence  that  could 
be  appropriately  employed  only  long  afterward.  But  the  author 
of  Deuteronomy  thoroughly  understood  the  Hebrew  language, 
and  it  is  more  likely  that  Kuenen  and  other  critics  are  mistaken 
than  that  he  committed  a  grammatical  blunder. 

The  remaining  passage  which  Kuenen  declines  to  give  up  is 
the  one  with  which  we  set  out — Deuteronomy  3:  14,  "called 
them  after  his  own  name,  Bashan-havoth-jair,  unto  this  day." 
But  we  have  shown  that  the  formula  here  employed,  by  itself 
considered,  means  merely  present  time.  We  have  shown  also 
that  Kuenen  himself  admits  that  "there  is  nothing  in  this 
expression  absolutely  to  preclude  the  Mosaic  date."  We  have 
further  shown  that  in  some  cases  the  statement  made  in  connec- 
tion with  this  formula  refers  to  a  very  brief  period  of  time,  as, 
for  example,  the  time  of  David's  sojourn  in  the  land  of  the 
Philistines.  Once  more,  the  writer  of  our  passage  appears  to 
have  been  living  at  the  time  Jair  called  the  villages  after  his  own 
name.  No  preceding  time  or  event  is  expressed  or  implied. 
Jair  named  the  villages  "unto  this  day,"  at  this  time,  the  time 
then  present.  And  the  words  purport  to  be  spoken  by  Moses. 
Did  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  commit  a  blunder  in  grammar 
in  representing  Moses  as  using  language  which  was  applicable 
only  to  events  long  after  their    occurrence.?    To    employ  the 


CI.AIMED    ANACHRONISMS  53 

phraseology  as  an  argument  to  prove  that  the  writer  lived  long 
after  the  Mosaic  age  is  to  assume  that  Moses  did  not  speak  the 
words  attributed  to  him,  and  that  the  writer  committed  the 
literary  blunder  of  attributing  words  to  him  that  he  could  not 
have  spoken  without  a  grammatical  error. 

12.  Joseph's  declaration:  "For  indeed  I  was  stolen  away 
out  of  the  land  of  the  Hebrews."  ^ 

The  analysts  maintain  that  Palestine  was  not  called  the  land 
of  the  Hebrews  until  after  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  and  there- 
fore Moses  could  not  have  written  this  passage.  Kuenen  coolly 
assumes  the  anachronism  without  proof.  Reuss's  presentation 
of  the  objection  is  as  follows :  "Joseph  raconte  a  Pharaoh  qu'il 
a  ete  enleve  du  pays  des  Hebreux.  (Gen.  40:  15.)  Comment  le 
pays  de  Canaan  pouvait-il  etre  nomme  ainsi,  soit  par  un  indi- 
vidu  qui,  avec  ses  onze  freres,  etait  le  seul  representant  de  la 
nation  des  Hebreux,  soit  par  Moise  du  temps  duqual  il  n'y  avait 
pas  un  seul  homme  de  cette  race  dans  le  pays  ?  "  ^  ( "  Joseph  re- 
lates to  Pharaoh  that  he  was  carried  off  from  the  country  of  the 
Hebrews.  (Gen.  40  :  15.)  How  could  the  country  of  Canaan  be 
named  thus,  either  by  an  individual  who,  with  his  eleven 
brothers,  was  the  sole  representative  of  the  nation  of  the 
Hebrews,  or  by  Moses,  at  the  time  in  which  there  was  not  a 
single  man  of  this  race  in  the  country?") 

This  statement  is  marked  by  the  characteristic  inaccuracy  of 
its  author. 

( 1 )  Joseph  related,  not  to  Pharaoh,  as  Reuss  states,  but  to 
the  chief  butler,  how  he  had  been  taken  from  the  land  of  the 
Hebrews.^ 

(2)  Reuss  errs  again  in  asserting  that  Joseph,  with  his  eleven 
brothers,  was  the  sole  representative  of  the  Hebrew  nation. 
When  he  said  this,  he  must  have  forgotten  Jacob,  his  numerous 
grandsons,  and  the  whole  company  of  sixty-six  persons,  includ- 
ing only  two  of  the  women,  that  went  down  into  Egypt. 

( 3 )  Our  critic  makes  a  mistake,  or  does  worse,  in  using  the 
word  "nation"  in  this  connection.  Neither  Joseph  nor  Moses 
calls  Jacob's  family  a  nation.     They  are  simply  called  Hebrews. 

(4)  It  is  an  unjustifiable  assumption  to  assert,  as  our  critic 
does,  that  if  Moses  wrote  this  passage  he  must  have  written  it 
when  there  was  not  a  single  man  of  the  Hebrew  race  in  the 
country.     It  is  possible  that  Moses  revised  the  Book  of  Genesis 

•Gen.  40  :  15.  »  L'Histoire  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  131.  "  Gen.  40  :  9,  15,  23. 


54  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

near  the  close  of  his  life,  and  that  he  inserted  this  very  phrase, 
"land  of  the  Hebrews,"  after  the  two  and  a  half  tribes,  includ- 
ing more  than  one  hundred  thousand  able-bodied  men,  with 
their  wives  and  children, —  in  all,  more  than  three  hundred  thou- 
sand persons, — had  been  permanently  settled  in  Palestine  east 
of  the  Jordan.^  Critics,  who  have  so  much  to  say  about  the 
revising  and  touching  up  of  books,  ought  to  allow  that  an 
ancient  author  might  revise  and  retouch  his  own  writings. 

(5)  In  the  circumstances,  Joseph's  calling  Canaan  the  land  or 
country  of  the  Hebrews  was  both  natural  and  proper.  What 
else  would  he  have  called  it?  Had  he  called  it  Canaan  or  the 
land  of  the  Canaanites,  the  Egyptians  would  have  regarded  him 
as  a  Canaanite.  If  he  had  named  it  Palestine  or  the  country  of 
the  Philistines,  he  would  have  been  regarded  as  a  Philistine. 
He  was  a  Hebrew.  His  great-grandfather,  a  mighty  prince,  2 
was  known  as  Abraham  the  Hebrew.  This  name  was  trans- 
mitted to  his  descendants.  The  Pentateuchal  history  shows  that 
in  Egypt  they  were  called,  not  Israelites  nor  Jews,  but  Hebrews. 
Thus  the  Egyptians  knew  them  and  named  them.^  In  speaking, 
then,  of  Palestine  to  an  Egyptian  it  was  very  natural  and  proper 
that  Joseph  should  designate  it  as  the  land  or  country  of  the 
Hebrews,  or  the  country  in  which  the  Hebrews  lived.  It  seems, 
however,  that  Reuss  objects  to  the  use  of  this  expression  in 
Joseph's  and  Moses'  time,  on  the  ground  that  the  Hebrews  did 
not  own  the  country  until  after  the  conquest.  In  his  note  on  the 
passage  he  says:  "Un  pays  des  Hebreux  n'a  existe  qu'apres 
la  conquete.  Ni  Joseph  ni  Moise  n'a  pu  s'exprimer  ainsi."* 
("A  country  of  the  Hebrews  existed  only  after  the  conquest. 
Neither  Joseph  nor  Moses  could  have  expressed  himself  thus.**) 
Had  Jacob  and  his  sons  no  country  at  all  ?  Canaan  was  theirs 
because  they  lived  in  it,  just  as  people  in  general  call  the  country 
in  which  they  live  their  own,  whether  they  possess  any  real 
estate  in  it  or  not. 

But  whether  correct  or  not,  it  was  natural  for  Joseph  to  call 
the  land  from  which  he  had  been  carried  off  the  land  of  the 
Hebrews,  and  it  was  proper  for  the  historian  to  record  accurately 
his  words. 

13.     Another   case   of  claimed   anachronism   is   the   naming 

of  the  villages  of  Jair.     The  passages  on  which  the  claim  of 

» Num.  1 :  21,  25,  35.  2  Gen.  23  :  6. 

-' ;  ;en.  40 :  15  ;  41 :  12 ;  Ex.  1 :  15, 16, 19 ;  2 :  6,  7, 11, 13  ;  7 :  16 ;  9  :  1, 13. 

*  L'llistoire  Sainte,  Vol.  I.,  p.  420,  note. 


CIvAIMED    ANACHRONISMS  55 

anachronism  is  founded  are  as  follows:  "And  Jair  the  son  of 
Manasseh  went  and  took  the  small  towns  thereof,  and  called 
them  Havoth-jair."  ^  In  the  address  of  Moses,  recorded  in 
Deuteronomy,  the  statement  is  repeated  that  Jair  took  certain 
towns  and  districts  and  '  *  called  them  after  his  own  name,  Bashan- 
havoth-jair,  unto  this  day."  2  But  in  Judges  we  have  an  account 
of  a  man  named  Jair,  a  Gileadite,  who  "judged  Israel  twenty 
and  two  years.  And  he  had  thirty  sons  that  rode  on  thirty  ass 
colts,  and  they  had  thirty  cities,  which  are  called  Havoth-jair 
unto  this  day,  which  are  in  the  land  of  Gilead."  ^ 

The  contention  is  that  cities  that  received  the  name  of  Havoth- 
jair  in  the  time  of  the  judges  are  represented  in  the  Pentateuch 
as  having  been  thus  named  in  the  time  of  Moses — a  clear  case  of 
anachronism.  Voltaire,  speaking  of  Moses  and  the  Pentateuch, 
says:  "II  n'y  a  pas  d'apparence  qu'il  eut  appele  les  endroits 
dont  il  parle  de  noms  qui  ne  leur  furent  imposes  que  longtemps 
apres.  II  est  fait  mention  dans  ce  livre  des  villes  de  Jair,  et  tout 
le  monde  convient  qu'elles  ne  furent  ainsi  nommes  que  long- 
temps  apr^s  la  mort  de  Moise."*  ("There  is  no  probability  that 
he  would  call  places  of  which  he  speaks  by  names  which  were 
given  them  only  long  afterward.  In  this  book  there  is  mention 
of  the  cities  of  Jair,  and  all  the  world  agrees  that  they  were  thus 
named  only  long  after  the  death  of  Moses.")  Other  critics  say 
substantially  the  same  thing. 

To  this  our  reply  shall  be  brief,  and  it  is  just  this,  that  the 
passage  in  Judges  does  not  say  when,  nor  after  whom,  the  cities 
mentioned  therein  were  named.  It  does  indeed  say  that  these 
cities  were  called  Havoth-jair,  but  that  they  were  thus  called 
after  the  name  of  Judge  Jair  is  just  what  it  does  not  say.  Vol- 
taire no  doubt  saw  this  fatally  weak  place  in  the  argument,  and 
endeavored  to  cover  it  up  with  the  asseveration  that  "all  the 
world  agrees  that  they  were  thus  named  only  long  after  the 
death  of  Moses."  His  successors  in  criticism  have  pursued  a 
similar  course.  Besides,  this  is  a  case  of  apparent  discrepancy 
between  authors,  not  anachronism  ;  but  in  such  cases  some  critics 
may  alwaj^s  be  depended  on  to  decide  against  the  Pentateuch. 

14.  Kuenen  refers  to  Numbers  15 :  22  to  show  that  to  the 
writer  of  the  passage  the  sojourn  in  the  wilderness  was  a  closed 
period  of  history.     But  what  of  it  ?    The  sojourn  in  the  wilder- 

1  Num.  32:41.  2  Deut.  3  :  14.  a  judg.  10  :  3,  4. 

*  Dictionnaire  Philosophique,  Vol.  XIX.,  p.  65. 


56  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

ness  was  indeed  a  closed  period  of  history  to  Moses  and  the 
Israelites  during  the  whole  time  covered  by  the  Book  of  Deuter- 
onomy. We  suggest,  however,  that  the  words,  "while  the 
children  of  Israel  were  in  the  wilderness,"  may  be  understood  as 
implying  that  the  writer  viewed  the  sojourn  in  the  wilderness 
merely  as  still  in  progress.  So  far  as  this* statement  is  con- 
cerned, the  author  at  the  time  of  writing  may  himself  have  been 
sojourning  in  the  wilderness. 

15.  Deuteronomy  19  :  14:  "  Thou  shalt  not  remove  thy  neigh- 
bor's land-mark,  which  they  of  old  time  have  set  in  thine  inher- 
itance, which  thou  shalt  inherit  in  the  land  that  the  I^ord  thy 
God  giveth  thee  to  possess  it." 

It  is  maintained  that  the  words,  "they  of  old  time  have  set  in 
thine  inheritance,"  indicate  that  at  the  time  of  the  writing  of 
this  passage  the  boundary  marks  of  the  lands  in  Canaan  had 
been  in  existence  for  a  long  time.  The  passage,  however,  is  in 
form  a  legal  enactment,  and  purports  to  have  been  uttered  by 
Moses  in  prospect  of  their  future  settlement  in  Canaan.  If  the 
form  of  expression  betrays  a  later  origin,  it  must  be  that  the 
writer  erred  in  the  use  of  words.  He  tried  to  put  such  words 
into  the  mouth  of  Moses  as  would  represent  him  as  legislating, 
before  the  conquest,  for  the  Israelites  after  they  should  have  been 
permanently  settled.  But  he  failed  to  choose  the  right  words, 
and,  by  mistake,  represents  Moses  as  talking  like  a  man  who 
lived  at  a  much  later  period.  According  to  the  critics,  the  writer 
of  this  passage  committed  the  error  of  representing  Moses  as 
saying  that  the  settlement  in  Canaan  was  still  future  and  as  vir- 
tually saying  at  the  same  time  that  it  had  taken  place  long 
before. 

If  there  had  been  a  future-perfect  tense  of  the  Hebrew  verb, 
probably  Moses  would  have  said,  "Remove  not  thy  neighbor's 
land-mark,  which  they  going  before  thee  shall  have  set."  But 
for  the  absence  of  the  future-perfect  tense  from  the  Hebrew 
language,  evidently  there  would  not  be  even  the  semblance  of  a 
foundation  for  the  argument  which  the  critics  draw  from  this 
passage. 

These  are  the  principal  passages  and  arguments  that  are 
adduced  by  the  analysts  to  prove  anachronisms  in  the  Pentateuch, 
and  to  disprove  its  Mosaic  authorship. 


CHAPTER  IV 

CLAIMED  ALLOTOPISMS 

It  is  claimed  that  there  are  in  the  Pentateuch  passages  that 
were  written  in  places  where  Moses  at  the  time  was  not,  and 
could  not  have  been.  The  objector  reasons  as  follows  :  According 
to  the  import  of  some  passages  in  the  Pentateuch,  the  author  at 
the  time  of  writing  was  in  a  certain  place  or  country ;  but  Moses 
at  that  particular  time  was  in  another  place  or  country;  therefore, 
Moses  did  not  write  these  passages.  Principal  Cave  calls  these 
geographical  arguments  anatropisms.  We  prefer  to  call  them 
allotopisms.  They  are  a  legitimate  mode  of  reasoning.  If  an 
allotopism  can  be  established,  it  is  conclusive,  like  an  alibi  in  a 
criminal  case  in  court. 

I.  An  argument  of  the  above  kind  is  founded  on  the  words 
"beyond  Jordan,"  as  found  in  various  passages  of  Deuteronomy. 
The  rendering  in  the  Authorized  Version  is  generally  ' '  on  this 
side,"  or,  "on  the  other  side,"  but  sometimes  "beyond."  It  is 
maintained  by  the  critics  that  the  rendering  ought  to  be  "beyond 
Jordan,"  as  it  generally  is  in  the  Revised  Version.  The  argu- 
ment is  as  follows  :  In  Deuteronomy  Moses  and  the  Israelites  are 
spojcen  of  as  being  beyond  Jordan,  when  they  were  east  of  the 
Jordan.  "•  These  be  the  words  which  Moses  spake  unto  all  Israel 
beyond  Jordan  in  the  wilderness."^  Now  Moses,  at  the  time  he 
is  spoken  of  as  being  "beyond  Jordan,"  was  in  east  Palestine. 
If,  then,  the  writer  of  this  passage  speaks  from  his  own  geograph- 
ical standpoint,  he  was  at  the  time  of  writing  in  west  Palestine. 
In  that  case  the  writer  must  have  been  some  other  than  Moses. 
The  question,  then,  is.  Does  the  writer  use  the  phrase  "beyond 
Jordan '  *  with  reference  to  his  own  geographical  position  at  the 
time  of  writing?  Voltaire  assumes  that  he  does:  "Comment 
Moise  aurait-il  appele  villes  au  dela  du  Jourdan  les  villes  qui 
a  son  egard  ^taient  en  deca?"  ("How  could  Moses  call  cities 
on  this  side  Jordan  the  cities  beyond  Jordan  ?  "  ) 

*  Deut.  1 :  1,  R.V.  '» Dictionnaire  Philosophique,  3Io'ise,  Sec.  iii. 

57 


58  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

This  objection,  and  the  assumption  on  which  it  is  based,  have 
often  been  stated,  but  never  improved,  by  later  critics.  They 
assume  that  the  phrase  translated  "on  this  side  Jordan"  in 
Deuteronomy,  Authorized  Version,  and  "beyond  Jordan"  in  the 
Revised  Version,  is  employed  by  the  writer  to  designate  the  side 
of  Jordan  opposite  to  the  place  occupied  by  himself  at  the 
time  of  writing,  and  that  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  can  be 
determined  only  by  our  knowing  whether  the  writer  was  on  the 
east  or  west  side  of  the  Jordan.  A  little  honest  exegesis,  how- 
ever, is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  phrase  translated  "beyond 
Jordan"  has  no  reference  to  the  writer's  geographical  standpoint. 
It  will  not  be  denied  that  it  literally  means  "at  the  crossing  of 
Jordan. ' '  It  might  well  be  rendered  at  the  side  of,  or  beside,  Jorda7i . 
Instead  of  relying  on  this  phrase  itself,  or  his  own  geographical 
location,  to  indicate  which  side  of  the  Jordan  is  meant,  the 
writer  makes  his  meaning  known  by  additional  words  or  phrases, 
unless  it  is  made  clear  by  the  context ;  thus :  ' '  On  this  side 
Jordan  [at  the  crossing  of,  or  beside,  Jordan]  i^t  the  wilderness, 
in  the  plain  over  against  the  Red  sea,  between  Paran,  and  Tophel, 
and Laban,  and Hazeroth,  and Dizahab'' ;  ^  "on  this  side  [beside] 
Jordan,  in  the  land  of  Moab^';"^  "on  this  side  [beside]  Jordan, 
from  the  river  of  Arnon  unto  mount  Hermon;  {which  Herman  the 
Sidojiians  call  Sirio?i,  and  the  Amorites  call  it  Shenir'' ' )  /  ^  "  which 
the  Lord  your  God  hath  given  them  beyond  [beside]  Jordan."* 
Here  the  meaning  is  indicated  by  the  preceding  context,  in 
which  the  possession  of  the  two  and  a  half  tribes  is  located  on 
the  one  side  of  the  Jordan,  and  that  of  the  nine  tribes  impliedly 
on  the  other.  "Let  me  go  over  [cross]  and  see  the  good  land 
that  is  beyond  [beside]  Jordan,  that  goodly  mountain,  a7id  Leb- 
anon "/  ^  "Then  Moses  severed  three  cities  on  this  side  [beside] 
Jordan,  toward  the  su?i-rising  "/  ^  "on  this  side  [  beside  ]  Jordan, 
in  the  valley  over  against  Beth-peor,  in  the  land  of  Sihon  ki7ig  of 
the  Amorites,  who  dwelt  at  Heshbon^' ;''  "which  were  on  this 
side  [beside]  Jordan,  toward  the  sun-rising"";^  "and  all  the 
plain  on  this  side  [beside]  Jordan  eastward,  even  unto  the  sea  of 
the  plain,  under  the  springs  of  Pisgah^';^  "Are  they  not  on  the 
other  side  [beside]  Jordan,  by  the  way  where  the  sun  goeth  down, 
in  the  land  of  the  Canaanites  f  "  ^ " 

Thus,  in  the  ten  cases  in  which  the  author  of  Deuteronomy 

1  Deut.  1:1.       2  Deut.  1:5.        ^  Deut.  3  :  8,  9.       *  Deut.  3  :  20.      ^  Deut.  3  :  25. 
6  Deut.  4  :  41.      ^  Deut.  4  :  46.      «  Deut.  4  :  47.         »  Deut.  4  :  49.     "  Deut.  11 :  30. 


CIvAIMED  AI^LOTOPISMS  59 

employs  the  phrase  which  in  the  English  version  is  sometimes 
translated  "on  this  side  Jordan,"  and  sometimes  "beyond  Jor- 
dan," never  once  does  he  depend  on  the  phrase  itself,  nor  upon 
his  own  geographical  position,  to  indicate  which  side  of  the  Jor- 
dan is  meant,  but  always  on  added  words  or  phrases,  or  on  the 
context.  In  the  one  case  in  which  no  words  or  phrases  are 
added  to  complete  the  meaning,  the  context  makes  it  sufficiently 
plain  that  it  is  the  western  side  of  Jordan  that  is  referred  to.^ 

The  same  is  true  of  this  phrase  as  used  elsewhere.  Thus  in 
Numbers:  "On  this  side  [beside]  Jordan  eastward'';'^  "on  this 
side  [beside]  Jordan  near  Jericho  eastward,  toward  the  sun-ris- 
ing.''  3  The  use  of  this  phrase  in  the  Book  of  Joshua  is  precisely 
the  same.  Taking  the  rendering  of  the  Revisionists,  we  have 
the  following:  "beyond  Jordan  toward  the  sun-rising";*  "be- 
yond Jordan  westward "  ;  ^  "  beyond  Jordan  ...  on  all  the 
shore  of  the  great  sea "  ;  ^  "  beyond  Jordan  toward  the  sunris- 
ing  "  ;  ^  "  beyond  Jordan  westward "  ;  ^  "  beyond  Jordan  east- 
ward " ;  ^  "  bej^ond  the  Jordan  at  Jericho  eastward  "  ;  i  o  ' '  beyond 
Jordan  westward."  ^^ 

It  is  thus  shown  that  the  phrase  translated  in  both  the  Author- 
ized and  Revised  versions  sometimes  "beyond  Jordan,"  and 
sometimes  "on  this  side  Jordan,"  gives  no  information  as  to 
whether  the  object  to  which  it  is  applied  was  on  the  east  or  west 
side  of  that  river,  and  hence  does  not  indicate  the  locality  of  the 
writer.  In  every  case  it  is  shown  which  side  of  the  Jordan  is 
meant  by  additional  words  or  phrases,  as  "east,"  "west,"  "sun- 
rising,"  "going  down  of  the  sun,"  "land  of  Moab,"  "coasts  of 
the  great  sea,"  "in  the  wilderness  over  against  the  Red  sea," 
"from  Arnon  to  Hermon,"  or  by  the  context. 

Further,  both  Moses  and  Joshua  are  represented,  while  in 
east  Palestine,  as  calling  it  "beber  hayarden  "  ( J1^\1  *lDJ/3)-^^ 

One  of  the  following  conclusions  is  inevitable :  Either  ( i )  this 
phrase  means  merely  beside,  and  not  beyond;  or  (2)  Moses  and 
Joshua  committed  a  grammatical  blunder  very  often  in  the  use 
of  it :  or  (3)  the  writers  of  Duteronomy  and  the  Book  of  Joshua 
committed  a  literary  blunder  in  putting  this  phrase  into  their 
mouths;  or  (4)  this  phrase  is  used  by  both  the  speakers  and 

1  Deut.  3  :  20.  2  Num.  32 :  19.  ^  Num.  34  :  15. 

*  Josh.  1  .  15,  R.V.  «  Josh.  5 :  1,  R.  V.  •  Josh.  9  : 1,  R.  V. 

■'  Josh.  12  :  1,  R. V.  «  Josh.  12  ;  7,  R. V.  »  Josh.  18  :  7,  R. V. 

"Josh.  20 :  8,  R.V.  "  Josh.  22  ;  7,  R.V.  12 Deut.  3:8;  Josh.  1 :  14. 


6o  MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

the  writers  as  a  proper  name  for  east  Palestine,  like  cisalpine 
Gaul  by  the  ancient  Romans.  But  the  second  and  third  hypoth- 
eses are  inadmissible,  and  according  to  either  of  the  other,  two 
the  objection  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  is  baseless. 

2.  Another  example  of  allotopism  is  found  in  those  passages 
which  refer  to  the  cardinal  points  of  the  compass  west  and 
south. 

In  the  Pentateuch,  Yam  (Q^),  the  sea,  is  put  for  west,  and 

^eg-eb  O^^),  the  desert,  for  south.  But  when  Moses  and  the 
Israelites  were  in  Egypt,  at  Sinai,  and  in  the  wilderness,  the 
Mediterranean  was  not  to  the  west  of  them,  nor  the  JVegeb  to 
the  south.  It  is  hence  argued  that  the  Pentateuch  could  not 
have  been  written  in  Egypt,  at  Sinai,  or  in  the  wilderness,  and 
therefore  not  by  Moses. 

If,  like  the  analysts,  we  were  disposed  to  deal  in  hypotheses, 
we  might  suppose  that  Moses,  writing  the  Pentateuch  in  the 
wilderness,  designated  the  points  of  the  compass  in  accordance 
with  his  geographical  position  and  surroundings,  and  that  after 
he  came  to  eastern  Palestine,  in  revising  his  books,  he  adapted 
his  nomenclature  of  the  points  of  the  compass  to  the  modes  of 
thought  and  speech  prevalent  in  that  region.  Our  analytic  advo- 
cates could  not  with  self-consistency  object  to  the  supposition  of 
such  revision  and  redaction. 

But  our  reply  is  that  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  Moses  and  the 
Israelites  in  Egypt  and  the  wilderness  used  Yam  for  west  and 
Neged  for  south,  just  as  their  forefathers  did  in  Palestine.  The 
Hebrew  was  a  fully  formed  language  before  Jacob  went  down 
into  Egypt.  Abraham  brought  it  with  him  from  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees,  and  he  found  the  Canaanites  speaking  the  same  lan- 
guage as  himself.  Sayce  testifies  that  the  old  Babylonian  and 
Assyrian  languages  were  as  similar  to  that  of  the  Old  Testament 
as  two  modern  dialects  in  English  are  to  each  ottier,  ^  and  that 
the  language  of  Canaan  differed  but  little  from  Hebrew.  ^  Accord- 
ingly, the  Hebrews  and  Canaanites,  in  their  intercourse  with  each 
other,  had  no  need  of  interpreters. '^  The  Hebrew  was  therefore 
an  old  and  well-established  language  before  the  migration  to 
Egypt.  The  Hebrews  took  that  language  with  them  into  Egypt 
and  continued  to  speak  it  there.     In  that  language  Yam  means 

1  Fresh  Light  from  the  Monuments,  p.  29. 

2  Baces  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  57,  102. 

3  Gen.  23  :  15 ;  Josh.  2  :  1-22  ;  9 :  1-27. 


CLAIMED  ALLOTOPISMS  6l 

west  and  Negeb  means  south.  No  doubt,  Moses  and  the  Israelites, 
while  in  Egypt  and  the  wilderness,  expressed  themselves  in  this 
way,  because  it  was  in  accordance  with  well-established  Hebrew 
usage.  Julius  Caesar  did  not  cease  to  speak  of  transalpine  Gaul 
when  he  crossed  the  Alps,  nor  is  it  necessary  for  the  modern 
traveler  to  cease  speaking  of  the  Orient  when  he  reaches  India  or 
Japan.  In  after  times  the  Hebrews  did  not  change  their  mode 
of  speech  when  they  went  out  of  their  own  country.  The  cap- 
tives in  Babylonia  continued  to  use  Yam  for  west  and  Negeb  for 
south,  as  is  shown  by  the  One  Hundred  and  Twenty-sixth  Psalm 
and  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  and  Daniel.  To  be  consistent, 
the  critics  should  maintain  that  Ezekiel  and  Daniel  wrote  in 
Palestine. 

Palestine,  with  Yam  on  the  west  and  the  Negeb  on  the  south, 
was  not  unknown  to  the  Israelites,  or  at  least  to  Moses,  in  Egypt. 
Thothmes  III.,  king  of  Egypt,  conquered  Canaan  1600  B.C.,  a 
century  or  more  before  the  exodus.^  Gibeah,  Migdol,  Merom, 
Megiddo,  and  other  towns  made  familiar  by  the  Pentateuchal 
history,  twenty-five  in  all,  are  named  in  the  list  of  places  that 
submitted  to  the  conqueror.  Mention  is  made  of  the  Negeb,  or 
southern  district.  The  Pharaohs  kept  possession  of  Canaan 
until  the  time  of  Moses.  Rameses  II.,  the  Pharaoh  of  the 
oppression,  had  a  long  struggle  with  the  Hittites  for  the  posses- 
sion of  Canaan.  A  line  of  Egyptian  fortresses  was  established 
as  far  north  as  Damascus.  Thus  a  knowledge  of  Canaan  was 
kept  up  among  the  Egyptians  in  the  time  of  Moses.  The 
tablets  give  an  account  of  the  travels  of  an  Egyptian  viohar  in 
Palestine,  in  these  times,  describing  how  he  went  in  his  chariot 
to  Gebal,  Sarepta,  Sidon,  Hazor,  Tabor,  Hamath,  and  other 
cities  ;  how  he  had  his  clothes  stolen  one  night,  and  how  at 
another  time  he  had  a  wheel  of  his  chariot  broken,  and  was 
necessitated  to  have  it  repaired  at  a  blacksmith  shop.^ 

Thus  in  the  time  of  Moses  there  were  frequent  communications 
between  Egypt  and  Canaan  and  adjoining  and  tributary  prov- 
inces. Thus,  too,  there  was  much  to  remind  Moses  of  the  land 
of  his  ancestors  and  to  preserve  in  him  the  remembrance  and 
love  of  his  mother  tongue,  with  its  idioms  and  peculiar  forms. 

The  matter,  then,  stands  thus:  In  the  Hebrew  language,  spoken 
in  Canaan  before  the  time  of  Abraham,  Yam  designated  the  west, 

1  Wilkinson's  AtxcieiU  Egypt,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  399-403. 

'  Sayce's  Fresh  lAght  from  the  Monuments,  pp.  56-59  ;  Hittites,  pp.  27-31. 


62  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE)    Pi^NTATBUCH 

and  Negeb  the  south ;  the  Israelites  in  Egypt  continued  to  use 
their  native  language ;  the  Hebrew  was  the  mother  tongue  of 
Moses,  as  well  as  of  the  Israelites  in  general ;  hence,  to  him  and 
to  them,  whether  they  were  in  Goshen,  or  at  Sinai,  or  near  to 
Palestine,  or  whatever  their  geographic  position  might  be,  Yam 
meant  the  west,  and  Negeb  the  south.  Hence  the  use  of  these 
words  in  this  sense  in  the  Pentateuch  does  not  indicate  the 
locality  of  the  author  at  the  time  of  writing. 


CHAPTER  V 

CLAIMED  CONTRADICTIONS 

It  is  maintained  that  there  are  contradictions  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  therefore  that  it  is  not  the  production  of  Moses.  The 
objector  assumes  that  Moses  would  not  contradict  himself,  and 
accounts  for  the  supposed  contradictions  by  the  hypothesis  that 
the  Pentateuch  was  written  by  another  author,  or  rather  by 
many  other  authors. 

This  was  the  oft-repeated  argument  of  Voltaire  and  Paine.  It 
seems  to  be  confidently  relied  upon  by  Reuss^  and  Kuenen,^ 
who  give  lists  of  passages  claimed  to  be  contradictory. 

I.  Kuenen  claims  that  what  he  calls  "the  two  creation 
stories,"  contained  in  the  first  and  second  chapters  of  Genesis,  are 
contradictory.  He  says  :  ' '  The  division  of  the  work  of  creation 
into  six  days  is  entirely  unknown  to  the  second  story.  More- 
over, the  order  of  creation  is  quite  different  in  the  second :  first, 
the  man  is  created ;  then  trees  and  plants ;  then  animals  ;  and, 
lastly,  the  woman.  "3  In  regard  to  these  claims,  we  remark  as 
follows : 

( I )  There  is  a  presumption  against  any  such  contradiction 
as  Kuenen  thinks  he  finds  between  these  two  passages.  The 
author  of  Genesis,  even  though  he  were  an  uninspired  and  an 
ordinary  man,  was  not  likely  to  be  guilty  of  such  palpable 
inconsistency.  Even  on  the  hypothesis  of  two  authors,  the 
contradiction  is  unaccountable  and  improbable.  Why  did  not 
the  compiler  of  the  two  accounts,  or  some  redactor  afterward, 
harmonize  them  ?  According  to  the  analytic  view,  there 
was,  besides  the  first  compiler,  a  host  of  writers  whose  busi- 
ness it  was  to  retouch  and  improve  the  Pentateuchal  books. 
Whether,  therefore,  there  was  but  one  author  of  Genesis  or 
many,  the  existence  of  such  transparent  blemishes  as  Kuenen 
claims  in  that  book  would  be  strange  and  improbable. 

(  2  )     Our  critic  assumes  that  because  the  six  days'  work  is  not 

^  L'Histoire  Sainte,lnt.,j>i>.39-i3.    ^irexat€iich,i>p. 38-40.    ^  H€ZcUeuch,pp.38,39. 

63 


64  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OI^'   THE    PENTATEUCH 

mentioned  in  the  second  chapter,  therefore  it  is  denied.  This  is 
unreasonable.  Silence,  if  it  does  not  give  consent,  is  at  least 
not  denial.  Otherwise,  we  might  say  that  Kuenen  is  contradicted 
by  Reuss  in  regard  to  this  very  matter  in  hand  ;  for  the  latter  is 
silent  in  regard  to  it,  though  he  makes  it  his  special  business  to 
find  contradictions  in  the  Pentateuch. 

(3)  The  order  of  narration  in  the  two  chapters  is  dififerent, 
but  this  difference  is  no  contradiction.  Authors  are  not  bound 
to  state  events  in  the  order  of  their  occurrence.  They  may  treat 
of  the  same  subject  twice  or  oftener;  they  are  not  bound  to 
follow  the  same  order  of  presentation  ;  and  in  the  second  treat- 
ment or  account  they  may  give  particulars  not  contained  in  the 
first.  According  to  our  critic's  view,  if  a  second  witness  in  court 
does  not  repeat  all  the  testimony  given  by  the  first,  or  does  not 
give  it  in  the  same  order,  there  is  contradiction  between  them. 

(4)  Kuenen  ignores  the  common-sense  view  which  has  com- 
mended itself  to  readers  and  students  of  the  Bible  in  general. 
That  view  is  that  the  account  contained  in  the  second  chapter  of 
Genesis  is  designed  to  supplement  the  account  contained  in  the 
first  by  the  addition  of  some  particulars.  In  this  second  account 
man  is  taken  as  the  special  subject.  His  twofold  nature  is  sug- 
gested by  additional  information  concerning  his  creation,  ^  and 
then  is  set  forth  the  provision  that  God  made  for  him.  Among 
other  things,  it  is  stated  that  the  lyord  brought  the  beasts  of  the 
field  and  the  fowls  of  the  air  to  Adam,  that  he  might  name 
them.  2  Their  formation  out  of  the  ground  is  mentioned  in  this 
connection,  and  if  it  is  to  be  understood  that  they  were  formed 
immediately  before  they  were  brought  to  Adam  we  would  be 
compelled  to  recognize  the  passage  as  conflicting  with  the  first 
chapter,  where  the  formation  of  the  land  animals  is  assigned  to 
the  fifth  day  and  the  creation  of  man  to  the  sixth.  But  such  a 
construction  is  not  necessary.  Owing  to  the  want  of  the  pluper- 
fect tense  in  the  Hebrew  language,  the  perfect  is  often  made  to 
do  duty  in  its  place.  Hence,  the  meaning  may  be  presented 
thus:  "And  out  of  the  ground  the  Lord  God  had  formed  every 
beast  of  the  field  and  every  fowl  of  the  air."  Only  the  beasts  of 
the  field  are  here  mentioned,  not  the  beasts  of  the  earth ;  and 
only  the  la7id  fowls, — the  fowls  formed  out  of  the  ground,'^ — not 
the  water  fowls,  are  mentioned.  The  fact  that  the  animals 
brought  to  Adam  were  formed  out  of  the  ground  is  the  thing 

1  Gen.  2  :  7,  8-25.  =  Gen.  2  :  19.  ^Gen.  1 :  20;  2:  19. 


CI.AIMED   CONTRADICTIONS  65 

indicated,  not  the  time  of  their  formation.  The  thought  would 
be  expressed  in  English  thus :  "The  Ivord  God  brought  to  Adam 
the  beasts  and  birds  which  he  had  formed  out  of  the  ground. ' ' 

(5)  Finally,  Kuenen  deals  here  only  in  assumption  and  asser- 
tion. 

2.  Reuss  finds  a  contradiction  in  the  passages  one  of  which 
represents  Sarah  as  the  daughter-in-law  of  Terah  ^  and  the  other 
as  his  daughter.  ^  But  there  is  here  certainly  no  contradiction  ; 
for  when  Sarah  married  Abram,  her  father's  son,  she  became 
the  daughter-in-law  of  her  father.  Here,  also,  according  to  the 
analytic  view,  Kuenen  contradicts  Reuss,  for  the  former  is  silent 
in  regard  to  this  supposed  contradiction. 

3.  Reuss^  affirms  that  the  account  of  Abraham's  attempt  to 
deceive  Pharaoh*  is  a  story  told  in  two  other  places,^  with  varia- 
tions. Kuenen  decides  that  the  deception,  after  its  finst  failure, 
is  too  improbable  psychologically  for  the  same  author  to  ascribe 
both  attempts  to  Abraham.  ^  According  to  Reuss,  we  have  here, 
of  the  same  afiair,  three  reports  contradicting  one  another  as  to 
persons,  times,  places,  and  circumstances.  Kuenen  holds  this 
view  in  regard  to  two  of  the  reports,  but  is  silent  in  regard  to 
the  third. 

As  a  matter  of  course,  the  hypothesis  that  these  three  accounts, 
or  even  two  of  them,  relate  to  one  event  involves  the  notion  of 
contradiction.  But  this  hypothesis  is  made  without  just  reason. 
There  is  nothing  improbable  in  Abraham's  doing  the  same  thing 
twice  and  in  Isaac's  doing  it  once.  The  "psychological"  reason 
assigned  by  Kuenen  is  puerile.  It  is  not  incredible  that  Abra- 
ham should  resort  to  an  expedient  that  had  failed.  Men  often 
do  this.  They  fight  and  fail,  and  fight  again;  they  deceive  and 
fail,  and  try  to  deceive  again.  History  abounds  in  examples  of 
this.  If  future  theorists  should  imitate  the  course  of  the  critics, 
the  former  may,  with  their  hypotheses  and  fancy,  make  as  great 
havoc  of  secular  history  as  the  latter  are  trying  to  make  of  the 
narratives  in  the  Pentateuch.  Perhaps  some  future  critic  will 
decide  that  the  accounts  of  the  beheading  of  Charles  II.  and 
Louis  XVI.  are  discordant  stories  of  the  same  event.  Why  not? 
Both  the  culprits  were  kings,  both  had  been  dethroned,  both  had 
been  imprisoned,  both  were  tried  by  irregular  courts,  both  were 
condemned  and  executed  by  their  own  subjects,  and  both  were 

^  Gen.  11 :  31.  «  Gen.  20  :  12.  ^  L'Histoire  Sainte,  Int.,  pp.  40,  41. 

*  Gen.  12 :  10-20.  "  Gen.  20 :  1-lS ;  26 :  1-11.  '^Hexateuch,  p.  39. 

5 


66  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

put  to  death  in  the  same  way.  How  many  points  of  similarity 
there  are!  In  the  coming  ages  the  man  who  has  a  theory  to 
maintain  will  not  find  it  difficult  to  persuade  himself  that  all 
the  accounts  of  the  death  of  these  two  monarchs  are  only  variant 
stories  of  one  beheading.  Perhaps  some  skeptical  investigator 
in  coming  time  will  pronounce  a  like  judgment  on  the  accounts 
of  the  death  of  I^incoln  and  Garfield.  The  similarities  are  very 
striking — both  Presidents  of  the  United  States,  both  elected  by 
the  same  political  party,  both  assassinated,  both  surviving  for  a 
time  the  assassin's  attack,  both  assassinated  in  Washington, 
both  assassinated  in  public,  the  assassin  in  both  cases  put  to 
death.  The  historical  skeptic  will  perhaps  talk,  like  Kuenen, 
about  psychological  improbability  in  the  case.  He  may  say :  ( i ) 
that  it  is  psychologically  improbable  that  the  public  assassina- 
tion of  a  President,  followed  by  the  speedy  death  of  the  perpe- 
trator, would  be  very  soon  repeated;  (2)  that  the  improbability 
is  increased  by  the  fact  that  the  first  assassination  is  represented 
by  historians  as  being  perpetrated  in  the  theater,  in  the  presence 
of  hundreds  of  people,  and  the  second  in  broad  daylight,  in  the 
thronged  streets  of  Washington  City  ;  (3)  that  the  improbability, 
amounting  to  incredibility,  is  further  shown  by  the  fact  that  it 
was  claimed  at  the  time  that  the  second  assassin  was  insane, 
which  shows  that  many  even  then  regarded  the  act  as  performed 
by  a  sane  man  as  incredible. 

This  is  a  fair  representation  of  the  way  that  Reuss,  Kuenen, 
and  other  analysts,  by  means  of  hypothesis  and  fancy,  construe 
two  or  three  Bible  narratives  as  discordant  stories  of  one  event, 
and  then  infer  contradictions  as  to  persons,  places,  times,  and 
circumstances.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  though  these  critics  are 
keen  to  observe  similarity  in  these  narratives  they  seem  to  be 
blind  to  the  dissimilarities.  In  this  way  just  conclusions  are 
not  likely  to  be  reached. 

4.  Reuss  and  Kuenen  claim  that  there  are  two  accounts  of 
the  origin  of  the  name  "Beer-sheba."^  Of  course,  their  aim  is 
to  prove  that  they  are  contradictory,  and  thus  to  prove  that 
Moses  did  not  write  them  both.  If  there  are  seemiiig  contra- 
dictions in  these  accounts,  they  are  only  seeming  ones.  It  is, 
indeed,  said  that  Isaac  digged  the  well  called  Beer-sheba.^  But 
it  is  said  that  Abraham  digged  the  well  and  named  it.  This 
looks  very  much  like  an  improbability,  if  not  a  contradiction. 

» Gen.  21 :  25-31 ;  26 :  32,  33.  »  Gen.  26 :  15, 18. 


CLAIMED  CONTRADICTIONS  67 

For  how  could  Isaac  dig  a  well  that  had  been  digged  before  ?  The 
sacred  record,  however,  makes  this  matter  plain,  for  it  is  expressly 
stated  that  the  Philistines  stopped  all  the  wells  which  Abraham 
digged  and  that  Isaac  had  digged  them  again.  ^  Nor  is  there  any 
contradiction  in  saying  that  both  Abraham  and  Isaac  named  one 
of  the  wells  Beer-sheba.  When  the  well  had  been  filled  up  by 
the  Philistines,  the  name  ceased.  When  the  well  went  out  of 
existence,  the  people  had  no  use  for  the  name.  But  when  Isaac 
redigged  the  well,  he  gave  it  the  name  which  his  father  had  given 
it  before.  The  express  declaration  is  that  Isaac  digged  again 
the  wells  which  the  Philistines  had  stopped  and  "called  their 
names  after  the  names  by  which  his  father  had  called  them."^ 

5.  Reuss  and  Kuenen  hold  that  we  have  two  discordant  ac- 
counts of  the  removal  of  Joseph  to  Egypt.  ^  According  to  one 
of  these  accounts,  Joseph  was  taken  by  his  brothers  out  of  the 
pit  into  which  they  had  cast  him  and  was  sold  by  them  to 
Ishmaelites,  who  took  him  to  Egypt.  According  to  the  other 
account,  he  was  stolen  out  of  the  pit  by  Midianites,  while  his 
brothers  were  eating  bread,  and  was  carried  to  Egypt  and  sold  to 
Potiphar,  an  oflB.cer  of  Pharaoh. 

One  of  the  main  arguments  in  favor  of  the  hypothesis  of  two 
discordant  accounts  is  the  fact  that  Joseph  is  said  to  have  been 
sold  both  to  Ishmaelites  and  Midianites,*  and  that  also  Joseph's 
sale  in  Egypt  is  attributed  in  one  place  to  the  Midianites^  and  in 
another  to  the  Ishmaelites.  ^  The  question  to  be  determined  is 
whether  these  two  names  designate  two  sets  of  persons  or  only 
one.'  Now,  that  the  Midianites  were  Ishmaelites  is  expressly 
declared  in  Judges  8:2.  It  is  there  said  of  the  Midianites,  after 
their  defeat  by  Gideon,  "They  were  Ishmaelites."  Reuss  states 
that  the  Midianites  were  accounted  Ishmaelites,  and  refers  to 
the  passages  concerning  the  sale  of  Joseph  to  prove  it.  In  his 
note  on  Genesis  25  :  1-6  he  says  :  "  Ces  Midyanites  sont  ailleurs 
ranges  parmi  les  descendants  d'Ismael  (Juges  8:  24,  conip. 
Gen.  38:  28,  comp.  avec  25  et  39:  i)"'  ("These  Midianites  are 
elsewhere  ranked  among  the  descendants  of  Ishmael").  Yet  he 
forgets  all  this,  and,  in  his  eagerness  to  find  a  contradiction  in 
the  account  of  the  sale  of  Joseph,  contradicts  himself.® 

» Gen.  26  :  15, 18.  *  Gen.  26 :  18.  =»  Gen.  37  :  18-36. 

*  Gen.  87  :  27,  28.  »  Gen.  37  :  36.  «  Gen.  39 :  1. 

'Reuss,  L^HisUyire  Sainte,  Vol.  I.,  p.  52;  Wellhausen,  Composition  des  Hexa- 
ieuehs,  pp.  54,  55.  ^L'Uistoire  Sainte,  Vol.  I.,  p.  379. 

^  L^Histoire  Sainte,  p.  52. 


68  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

We  are  not  now  discussing  the  question  whether  there  are 
two  or  more  narratives  dovetailed  together  in  the  Book  of 
Genesis,  but  whether  there  are  contradictions  in  the  account 
of  the  sale  of  Joseph.  And  we  advert  to  the  identification  of 
the  Midianites  with  the  Ishmaelites  in  that  account  and  else- 
where, distinctly  admitted  by  Reuss,  as  showing  the  unreality 
of  the  claimed  contradiction. 

As  to  the  claimed  contradiction  between  the  two  statements 
that  Joseph  was  stolen^  and  that  he  was  sold,^  there  need  be  no 
difficulty,  if  we  only  allow  to  words  that  latitude  of  meaning 
which  all  mankind  gives  them.  He  who  takes  a  man  and  sells 
him  is  a  thief  and  a  robber.  Those  who  think  that  Joseph  con- 
tradicted himself  in  speaking  at  one  time  of  his  removal  to 
Egypt  as  a  sale  and  at  another  as  a  theft  would  do  well  to  reflect 
a  little  on  the  old  Deuteronomic  law  :  "  If  a  man  be  found  steal- 
ing any  of  his  brethren  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  maketh 
merchandise  of  him,  or  selleth  him;  then  that  thief  shall  die."^ 
This  fully  justifies  the  variant  language  of  Joseph  concerning 
the  stealing  and  selling  of  himself  by  his  brethren  and  the 
Ishmaelites.  Clearly  the  author  of  Genesis  had  more  common 
sense  than  our  critics. 

6.  Reuss  and  Kuenen  claim  that  there  are  contradictory 
accounts  of  the  change  of  Jacob's  name  to  "Israel."  They 
quote  in  proof  Genesis  32 :  28  and  Genesis  35 :  10.  But  do  these 
passages  conflict  ?  In  the  first,  the  change  of  name  is  announced 
in  connection  with  the  wrestling  of  Jacob  with  the  angel.  In  the 
second  passage  it  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  Jacob's  second 
visit  to  Bethel.  The  change  itself  from  "Jacob"  to  "Israel" 
could  not  be  made  twice,  but  the  change  might  be  announced 
twice  or  oftener.  Reuss  himself  destroys  the  objection  in  his 
presentation  of  it.  He  saj^s :  "Le  nom  d' Israel  fut  donne  a 
Jacob,  d'apres  chap.  32:  28,  en  suite  de  la  lutte  nocturne  que  le 
patriarche  avait  soutenue  contre  Dieu.  Au  chap.  35:  10,  ce 
changement  de  nom  est  relate  une  seconde  fois  a  I'occasion 
d'une  autre  rencontre."  ^  ("The  name  of  'Israel'  was  given  to 
Jacob,  according  to  chapter  32  :  28,  in  consequence  of  the  noctur- 
nal wrestling  which  Jacob  had  sustained  against  God.  In  chap- 
ter 35 :  10  this  change  of  name  is  related  a  second  time,  on  the 
occasion  of  another  rencounter.")  Observe  the  statements: 
The  name  of  "Israel"  is  given  on  the  occasion  of  the  wrestling ; 

*  (len.  40 :  15.       «  Gen.  45  :  4.       =»  Deut.  24  :  7.        *  L'HisUnre  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  42. 


CLAIMED   CONTRADICTIONS  69 

this  change  of  name  is  related  a  second  time.    This  explodes  the 
objection. 

7.  Contradictions  are  claimed  in  the  accounts  of  Esau's  wives, 
and  in  the  statements  concerning  the  father-in-law  of  Moses.  In 
Genesis  26:34  ;  28:9  the  names  of  Esau's  wives  are  given  as  Judith, 
Bashemath,  and  Mahalath.  But  in  Genesis  36 :  2,  3  their  names 
are  given  as  Adah,  Aliolibamah,  and  Bashemath.  The  father-in- 
law  of  Moses  is  called  Jethro,  and  also  Reuel ;  he  is  called  also  a 
Midianite,^  a  Kenite,^  and  perhaps  by  implication  a  Cushite.^ 

But  these  passages  embracing  proper  names  are  a  very  inse- 
cure foundation  for  charges  of  contradiction.  Copyists  were 
especially  liable  to  make  mistakes  in  the  transcription  of  proper 
names.  Hence,  in  urging  such  objections  as  we  are  dealing 
with,  the  critics  are  in  danger  of  treating  mere  clerical  errors  of 
transcribers  as  contradictions  of  the  original  writers. 

Besides,  among  the  ancient  peoples  with  whom  we  are  specially 
concerned  it  was  not  uncommon  for  a  person  to  have  two  or 
more  names.  Thus,  we  have  Abram  and  Abraham,  Jacob  and 
Israel,  Esau  and  Edom,  Sarai  and  Sarah,  and  probably  Iscah  as 
a  third  name.*  We  do  verily  believe  that  our  critics  have  some 
knowledge  of  these  facts.  As  before  shown,  Reuss  in  one  place 
recognizes  the  fact  that  the  Midianites  were  accounted  as  Ishma- 
elites,  though  he  seems  in  a  short  time  to  have  forgotten  it.  But 
it  may  be  said,  even  granting  that  the  father-in-law  of  Moses 
had  two  names, — Reuel  and  Jethro, —  how  can  we  acquit  the 
Pentateuchal  record  of  self-contradiction  in  calling  him,  expressly 
or  impliedly,  in  one  place  an  Ishmaelite,  in  another  a  Midianite, 
in  another  a  Kenite,  and  in  another  a  Cushite?  This  can  be 
done  very  easily  by  accepting  every  one  of  these  statements  as 
true,  and  by  believing  that  Jethro  was  all  these  combined  in  one 
— an  Ishmaelite  by  descent,  a  Midianite  by  nation,  a  Kenite  by 
tribe,  and  a  Cushite  by  residence,  precisely  as  Moses  was  a 
Shemite  by  descent,  a  Hebrew  by  nation,  a  Levite  by  tribe,  and 
an  Egyptian  by  residence. 

8.  It  is  claimed  that  there  is  a  contradiction  in  the  statements 
made  concerning  the  birth  of  Benjamin,  Jacob's  youngest  son. 
One  statement  is,  that  he  was  bom  when  there  was  "a  little  way 
to  come  to  Ephrath,"  and  that  Ephrath  is  Bethlehem,  in  the 
land  of  Canaan.^     But  a  little  further  on  in  the  same  chapter 

*Ex.  2:  16-21;  3:  1;  18:  1.  »  Judg.  1 :  16  ;  4  :  11.  ^Num.  12:1. 

*Gen.  11  :  29.  ^Qen.  35 :  16-19. 


70  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OP   THE    PENTATEUCH 

the  names  of  Jacob's  twelve  sons,  including  Benjamin,  are  given, 
and  then  this  statement  is  made:  "These  are  the  sons  of 
Jacob,  which  were  born  to  him  in  Padan-aram.''^  The  claimed 
discrepancy  is  stated  by  Reuss  as  follows :  "  Au  meme  chapitre, 
35  :  i6,  il  est  dit  que  Rachel  accoucha  de  son  fils  Benjamin  pres 
de  Bet-lehem.  Kt  quelques  lignes  plus  loin,  v.  26,  il  est  dit  que 
tons  les  douze  fils  de  Jacob,  enumer^s  nominativement,  Benjamin 
y  compris,  etaient  nes  en  Mesopotamie,  avant  le  retour  du  patri- 
arche  en  Canaan."  2  ('«in  the  same  chapter,  35:  16,  it  is  said 
that  Rachel  was  delivered  of  her  son  Benjamin  near  to  Bethle- 
hem. And  some  lines  further  on,  verse  26,  it  is  said  that  all  the 
twelve  sons  of  Jacob,  mentioned  by  name,  Benjamin  included 
among  them,  were  born  in  Mesopotamia,  before  the  return  of 
the  patriarch  to  Canaan.") 

By  way  of  reply,  we  remark : 

(i)  The  statement  of  Reuss  is  not  accurate.  The  sacred 
record  does  not  say  that  ''all  the  twelve  sons  were  born  in 
Mesopotamia."  The  words  "all"  and  "twelve"  are  thrust  in 
by  the  critic  as  a  make-weight  in  the  argument. 

(2)  The  birth  of  Benjamin  took  place  before  the  arrival  at 
Hebron,  on  the  journey  from  Padan-aram. 

(3)  If  the  record  read  in  this  way  :  "These  are  the  sons  of 
Jacob,  who  were  all  born  in  Mesopotamia,  except  Benjamin,  who 
was  born  on  the  way  to  Hebron,"  the  most  captious  critic  could 
have  found  no  fault.  But  this  exceptional  statement  is  a  part  of 
the  record.  It  had  been  stated  just  a  few  lines  before  that  Benja- 
min was  born  on  the  home  journey  a  short  distance  from  Bethle- 
hem, and  it  was  no  more  necessary  to  repeat  this  statement  than 
to  state  a  second  time  that  Jacob's  other  sons  were  born  in 
Padan-aram. 

9.  It  is  claimed  that  there  are  two  discordant  accounts  of  the 
settlement  of  Esau  in  Seir.  Both  Reuss  ^  and  Kuenen*  main- 
tain that  according  to  one  passage  Esau  was  established  in  Seir 
^<^r^^  Jacob's  return  from  Mesopotamia,  and  according  to  another 
not  till  after ^  his  return.  In  this  latter  passage  it  is  indeed 
stated  that  the  permanent  settlement  of  Esau  in  Seir  was  effected 
after  Jacob's  return  to  Canaan;  but  in  the  other  passages  it  is 
not  stated  that  this  settlement  was  effected  before.  They  say 
nothing  about  Esau's  permanent  settlement,  or  his  settlement  at 

^  Gen.  35  :  21-26.     «  UHMoire  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  43.       =»  L'Histoire Sainte,  Int.,  p.  42. 
*  Hexateueh,  p.  39.  ^  Gen.  32  :  3  ;  Gen.  33  :  16.  «  Gen.  36 :  6-8. 


CLAIMED  CONTRADICTIONS  7 1 

all,  in  Seir.  What  they  state  is  as  follows :  ( i )  Jacob  sent  mes- 
sengers to  Esau  in  the  land  of  Seir  or  Kdom  ;^  (2)  the  messengers 
returned  with  the  information  that  Esau  was  approaching  with 
four  hundred  men  ;  ^  (3)  after  the  interview  between  the  brothers, 
Esau  returned  to  Seir. '  These  are  the  facts,  and  all  the  facts, 
stated.  They  do  not  prove  that  Esau  had  as  yet  settled  at  Seir. 
He  may  have  been  there  temporarily.  The  fact  that  he  had 
under  his  command  four  hundred  men  favors  the  supposition 
that  he  was  at  this  time  engaged  in  a  military  expedition  ;  but 
at  all  events  his  settlement  in  Seir  is  not  mentioned,  and  is  a 
mere  inference  of  our  critics,  employed  to  support  a  theory. 

10.  There  are  other  passages  which  the  analytic  critics  claim 
to  be  contradictory.  These  in  general  are  those  that  are  cited 
by  the  skeptics  in  their  efforts  to  disprove  the  divine  inspiration 
and  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  Nothing,  or  at  least  very  little, 
that  is  new  has  been  of  late  presented  on  this  subject.  We 
have  considered  what  we  believe  to  be  the  most  plausible  argu- 
ments employed  by  the  critics,  who  have  endeavored  to  fasten 
the  charge  of  inconsistency  and  contradiction  on  the  Pentateuch. 

^Gen.  32:3.  ^Gen,32:6.  ^Qen.23:16. 


CHAPTER  VI 

CLAIMED  DIFFICULTIES 

The  analysts  often  employ  against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  argumentation  of  this  sort:  That  it  contains 
statements  that  are  improbable,  or  that  can  scarcely  be  true,  or 
that  are  difficult  to  believe  ;  and  that  therefore  Moses  is  not  their 
author.  Generally,  when  one  of  these  gentlemen  says  that  some 
things  contained  in  the  Pentateuch  can  scarcely  be  true,  he  has 
already  peremptorily  decided  in  his  own  mind  that  they  are 
untrue ;  and  when  he  says  that  some  things  contained  in  the 
Pentateuch  are  difficult  to  believe,  he  means  that  such  things 
are  incredible  by  scholarly  and  candid  minds.  Expressions  of 
peremptory  disbelief  and  rejection  are  withheld  for  the  present 
as  inexpedient,  while  the  effort  is  being  made  to  infuse  doubts  or 
suspicions  into  the  minds  of  readers. 

The  claimed  improbabilities,  incredibilities,  and  impossibilities 
which  are  made  the  basis  of  objections  to  the  traditional  belief 
we  class  together  as  difficulties,  and  proceed  to  consider  them. 

/.     Hebrew  Genealogy. 

One  of  the  difficulties  is  in  connection  with  Genesis  46:  12, 
where  Hezron  and  Hamul  are  mentioned  among  the  children 
of  Israel  that  came  into  Egypt.  ^  They  are  included  among  the 
sixty-six  souls  that  came  with  Jacob  into  Egypt. ^  Now  Hez- 
ron and  Hamul  were  the  sons  of  Pharez,  the  son  of  Judah,  and, 
as  the  critics  say,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  Judah  could  have 
had  two  grandsons,  sons  of  Pharez,  born  before  the  migration 
to  Egypt.  Reuss  states  the  difficulty  as  follows:  "Juda,  dont 
les  deux  derniere  fils  pourvaient  a  peine  dtre  n4s,  a  deja  deux 
petit-fils,  issus  de  I'un  d'eux"^  ("Judah,  whose  two  last  sons 
could  hardly  have  been  born,  already  has  two  grandsons,  from 
one  of  them"). 

The  improbability  that  Judah  had  two  grandsons  at  the  time 

» Gen.  46 :  8-27.  « Gen.  46 :  26.  ^  L'Histoire  Sainte,  Vol.  I.,  p.  434. 

72 


CLAIMED    DiFFlCUIvTiES  73 

of  the  migration  to  Egypt  is  argued  as  follows :  He  was  only 
forty-two  years  old.  For  Joseph  was  thirty  years  of  age  when  he 
stood  before  Pharaoh,  and  since  that  time  nine  years  had  elapsed, 
seven  of  plenty  and  two  of  famine;  Joseph,  then,  was  thirty- 
nine  years  old  at  the  time  of  the  migration.  Judah  was  only 
about  three  years  older,  for  he  was  I^eah's  fourth  son,  and 
born,  it  is  inferred,  in  the  fourth  year  after  Jacob's  double  mar- 
riage.^ Joseph's  birth  is  recorded  next  after  that  of  Dinah,  who 
was  Leah's  seventh  child,  and  born  presumably  in  the  seventh 
year  after  Jacob's  and  Leah's  marriage.-  It  is  then  inferred  that 
Judah,  having  been  born  in  the  fourth  year  after  Jacob's  and 
Leah's  marriage,  was  three  years  older  than  Joseph  and  was 
forty-two  years  of  age  at  the  time  of  the  migration.  And  that 
Hezron  and  Hamul  were  not  born  before  that  time  seems  to  be 
proved  by  the  events  that  occurred  in  Judah' s  family.  ( i )  Judah 
married  and  had  three  sons,  Er,  Onan,  and  Shelah.  (2)  Er 
grows  up,  marries  Tamar,  and  dies  without  children.  (3)  Onan 
marries  Er's  widow,  Tamar,  and  dies  without  children.  (4) 
Shelah  was  not  yet  grown,  and  Tamar  waits,  expecting  to  marry 
him.  (5)  Tamar,  having  waited  in  vain  for  Shelah  to  marry 
her,  deceives  Judah  and  has  by  him  two  sons,  Pharez  and  Zarah. 
(6)  One  of  these  twin  sons  grows  up,  marries,  and  has  two 
sons,  Hezron  and  Hamul. 

All  these  events  are  mentioned  after  the  account  of  the  selling 
of  Joseph.  Events  are  not  always  mentioned,  in  the  Pentateuch 
and  elsewhere  in  the  Bible,  in  the  order  of  their  occurrence.  But 
we  concede,  notwithstanding,  that  it  is  difl&cult  to  believe  that 
Hezron  and  Hamul  were  born  before  the  migration — so  difficult, 
indeed,  that  we  do  not  ourselves  believe  it.  Yet  the  names  of 
these  two  persons  are  set  down  in  the  genealogical  register  among 
those  that  were  bom  in  Canaan  and  went  down  to  Egypt  with 
Jacob.  ^  This  is  one  of  the  difficulties  which  our  critics  employ 
in  the  effort  to  show,  in  the  words  of  Colenso,  that  '  *  the  books 
of  the  Pentateuch  contain,  in  their  account  of  the  story  which 
they  profess  to  relate,  such  remarkable  contradictions  and  involve 
such  plain  impossibilities  that  they  cannot  be  regarded  as  true 
narratives  of  actual,  historical  matters  of  fact."  * 

Our  reply  is  as  follows:  In  the  genealogical  registers  of 
the  Israelites  there  are  various  omissions,  exceptions,  substitu- 

1  Gen.  29 :  31-35.  '  Gen.  30  :  21-24.  »  Gen.  38  :  1-30 

♦  Colenso,  The  JPentcUeuch,  p.  60. 


74  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

tions,  and  imputative  reckonings  which  may  seem  strange  to  us 
with  our  Occidental  ideas,  but  which  were  in  accord  with  Hebrew 
ideas  and  with  Hebrew  modes  of  speech,  and  which,  when 
rightly  construed,  are  accurate  and  truthful.  The  counting  of 
Hezron  and  Hamul,  though  born  afterward  in  Egypt,  among 
those  who  migrated  with  Jacob,  is  only  one  of  many  examples 
of  this  sort.  The  Hebrew  genealogical  registers  abound  with 
them.  Our  critics  seem  to  need  information  on  this  subject,  and 
to  be  made  to  know  the  facts. 

1.  The  genealogical  table  in  question  begins  as  follows: 
**  And  these  are  the  names  of  the  children  of  Israel  which  came 
into  Egypt,  Jacob  and  his  sons:  Reuben,  Jacob's  first-born."  ^ 
Here  Jacob  is  placed  among  the  children  of  Israel — counted  as 
one  of  his  own  sons.  He  is  again  counted  among  the  sons  of 
I^eah.  "These  be  the  sons  of  I^eah,  which  she  bare  unto  Jacob 
in  Padan-aram,  with  his  daughter  Dinah:  all  the  souls  of  his 
sons  and  his  daughters  were  thirty  and  three.  "^  Here  Jacob  is 
placed  among  his  sons  and  daughters — counted  as  one  of  his 
own  children.  His  name,  which  stands  at  the  head  of  the  list,i 
must  be  counted  in  order  to  make  the  thirty-three  sons  and 
daughters  of  Leah, 

Also,  in  this  register,  Serah,  the  daughter  of  Asher,  is  counted 
among  his  sons :  "And  the  sons  of  Asher  ;  Jimnah,  and  Ishuah, 
and  Isui,  and  Beriah,"  and  Serah  their  sister. "^  Serah  is  here 
placed  among  the  sons  of  Asher.  She  is  again  placed  among 
the  sons  of  Zilpah :  "These  are  the  sons  of  Zilpah,  whom  Laban 
gave  to  Ivcah  his  daughter ;  and  these  she  bare  unto  Jacob,  even 
sixteen  souls.  "^  Here  Serah,  the  granddaughter  of  Zilpah,  is 
counted  among  Zilpah's  sons,  and  must  be  so  counted  in  order 
to  make  the  number  sixteen. 

2.  In  this  register  many  who  were  actually  born  in  Canaan 
are  counted  among  those  bom  in  Padan-aram.  "These  be  the 
sons  of  Leah,  which  she  bare  unto  Jacob  in  Padan-aram,  with  his 
daughter  Dinah ;  all  the  souls  .  .  .  were  thirty  and  three. "  ^  of  all 
these  only  seven  were  born  in  Padan-aram.  For  Jacob  remained 
there  only  twenty  years  and  was  married  at  the  end  of  the  seventh 
year.  His  first-born,  Reuben,  could  then  have  been  only  about 
thirteen  years  old  at  the  time  of  the  return  to  Canaan.  Hence 
none  of  Leah's  grandchildren  were  born  in  Padan-aram.  Yet 
in  the  family  register  they  are  all,  twenty-five  in  number,  set 

^  Gen.  46 :  8.  2  Gen.  46 :  15.  s  Gen.  46 :  17.  •  Gen.  46 :  18. 


CI.AIMED    DIFFICULTIES  75 

down  as  born  in  that  country.  Even  the  two  sons  of  Joseph, 
who  are  expressly  mentioned  as  having  been  bom  in  Egypt,  are 
counted  among  those  that  came  from  Canaan.  "All  the  souls 
of  the  house  of  Jacob,  which  came  into  Egypt,  were  threescore 
and  ten."  ^  The  sons  of  Joseph  are  included  among  the  three- 
score and  ten  that  came  from  Palestine  into  Egypt ;  for  they 
must  be  counted  to  make  up  that  number. 

3.  Also,  some  of  the  sons  of  Benjamin,  born  in  Egypt,  are 
counted  among  those  that  migrated  with  Jacob.  "  And  the  sons 
of  Benjamin  were  Belah,  and  Becher,  and  Ashbel,  Gera,  and 
Naaman,  Ehi,  and  Rosh,  Muppim,  and  Huppim,  and  Ard."^ 
Thus  Benjamin  is  represented  as  having  ten  sons.  Reuss  writes, 
sneeringly,  as  follows :  "All  those  who  have  read  the  history  of 
Joseph  in  Egypt  imagine  Benjamin,  the  cadet  of  the  family,  to 
be  a  young  boy.  His  name  became  proverbial  for  this  reason. 
Ah  !  well,  from  chapter  46 :  21  we  learn  that  when  Jacob  went  to 
settle  in  Egypt,  in  the  second  year  of  the  famine,  this  little  Ben- 
jamin was  the  father  of  ten  sons,  a  number  which  none  of  his 
elder  brothers  came  near  attaining. "»  In  the  light  of  certain 
well-known  facts  the  above-quoted  piece  of  criticism  is  seen  to 
be  well  nigh  ridiculous. 

(i)  "This  little  Benjamin,"  "this  young  boy,"  was  now 
about  thirty-seven  years  old. 

(2)  In  this  register,  and  elsewhere  in  the  Bible,  grandsons  are 
included  among  the  sons. 

(3)  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Gera,  Naaman,  Muppim,  Huppim, 
and  Ard  are  shown  to  be  grandsons  or  great-grandsons  of  Ben- 
jamin.-* Thus  the  number  of  his  sons  is  reduced  at  least  to 
five.  It  is  not  difficult  to  believe  that  a  man  thirty-seven  years 
old  might  have  five  sons,  especially  if  he  lived  in  a  time  and 
place  in  which  a  man  might  have  two  or  more  wives.  The  diffi- 
culty, then,  does  not  consist  in  Benjamin's  having  an  incredible 
number  of  children  at  the  time  of  the  migration,  but  in  the  fact 
that  his  grandsons,  although  not  yet  born,  are  represented,  like 
Judah's,  as  going  with  Jacob  to  Egypt. 

(4)  These  peculiarities  of  Hebrew  genealogy  are  not  confined 
to  the  Book  of  Genesis,  but  are  found  in  other  parts  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch. Exodus  1:5:  "And  all  the  souls  that  came  out  of 
the  loins  of  Jacob  were  seventy  souls  :  for  Joseph  was  in  Egypt 

» Gen.  46  ;  27.  «  Gen.  46  :  21.  a  jjHistoire  8amte,  Int.,  p.  97. 

*Num.  26  ;  38-40  ;  I.  Chr.  7  :  6-12  ;  8  ;  1-7. 


76  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE)    PENTATEUCH 

already."  Jacob  himself  was  one  of  the  seventy.  He  is  ex- 
pressly included  in  that  number.^  Thus  Jacob  is  represented 
as  among  those  who  ''came  out  of  the  loins  of  Jacob."  We 
found  him  before  counted  as  one  of  his  own  children.  ^ 

4.  From  this  family  register  of  Jacob  the  names  of  women 
are  undoubtedly  omitted.  It  contains  only  two  female  names — 
Dinah,  who  is  counted  as  one  of  the  thirty-three  sons  of  lycah, 
and  Serah,  the  daughter  of  Asher,  counted  as  one  of  the  sixteen 
sons  of  Zilpah.  But  were  there  only  two  women — one  daughter 
and  one  granddaughter — among  all  Jacob's  descendants  at  this 
time  ?  In  the  twelve  families  immediately  descended  from  Jacob, 
embracing  sixty-nine  persons,  only  one  girl  born  ?  This  is  one 
of  the  things  that,  some  critics  would  say,  are  hard  to  believe. 
For  us,  at  least,  it  is  easier  to  believe  that  in  Jacob's  company 
the  men  and  women  were  about  equal  in  number,  and  that  his 
daughters  and  granddaughters,  like  Jacob's  sons'  wives,  have 
been  omitted  from  the  family  register,  except  Dinah  and  Serah, 
who  for  some  special  reason  (possibly  because  they  became 
founders  of  families )  were  admitted  to  the  rank  and  rights  of 
sons.  In  one  place  Jacob's  daughters  are  referred  to  in  the  plural 
number.^  That  names  which  we  antecedently  would  expect 
to  find  in  the  Hebrew  genealogies  are  omitted  from  them,  is  an 
undeniable  fact.  According  to  the  genealogy  in  Exodus  6 :  16-18 
we  have  but  four  names, —  Levi,  Kohath,  Amram,  and  Moses, — 
apparently  representing  four  generations ;  but  in  I.  Chronicles 
7 :  23-27  we  have,  covering  the  same  space  of  time,  the  following 
names  :  Ephraim,  Beriah,  Rephah,  Telah,  Tahan,  Laadan,  Am- 
mihud,  Elishama,  Non,  and  Jehoshua  —  ten  in  all,  representing 
ten  generations.  Here  we  have  positive  evidence  that  in  the 
genealogy  of  Moses  five  names  and  generations  are  omitted. 
Besides,  as  we  proceed  to  show,  there  are  other  cases  of  omissions 
from  genealogical  registers. 

Ezra,  in  giving  his  own  descent,  omits  six  names  between 
Azariah  and  Meraioth.^  These  six  omitted  names  represent  six 
generations. 

In  the  genealogy  of  Christ  many  names  are  omitted.  At  first 
Christ  is  declared  to  be  the  son  of  David,  and  David  the  son  of 
Abraham.^  In  this  declaration  all  the  names  and  generations  be- 
tween David  and  Christ,  and  also  between  David  and  Abraham, 

^  Gen.  46 :  27.  « Gen.  46  :  8,  15.  3  Gen.  37 :  35. 

*  Ezra  7:3;  I.  Chr.  6 :  7-14.        «  Matt.  1:1. 


CLAIMED    DIFFICULTIES  77 

are  omitted.  The  gaps,  however,  are  filled  up  afterward,  but  not 
fully.  There  are  three  names  omitted  between  Joram  and  Ozias. 
"  Joram  begat  Ozias,"  says  the  register  in  Matthew.  ^  But  this  is 
true  only  constructively,  for,  according  to  the  history,  Joram 
(Jehoram)  begat  Ahaziah,  and  Ahaziah  begat  Joash,  and  Joash 
begat  Amaziah,  and  Amaziah  begat  Azariah,  called  also  Uzziah 
(Ozias). 2  But  all  this  is  omitted  in  the  genealogy  given  in 
Matthew,  and  Joram  is  there  said  to  have  begotten  Ozias 
(Azariah),  his  great-great-grandson.  Matthew  also  omits  the 
name  of  Jehoiakim  from  the  record.  He  says,  "Josias  begat 
Jechonias  and  his  brethren. "^  But  these  were  Josiah's  grand- 
sons. Jehoiakim,  their  father,  was  Josiah's  son.  But  Jehoiachin 
(Jechonias)  is  substituted  for  Jehoiakim,  just  as,  above  shown, 
Uzziah  (Ozias )  is  substituted  for  Ahaziah. 

In  I.  Chronicles  24 :  4  twenty-four  men  living  in  King  David's 
time  are  declared  constructively  to  be  the  grandsons  of  Aaron, 
and  in  I.  Chronicles  26 :  24  one  of  the  officers  of  David  is  de- 
clared to  be  the  son  of  Gershom,  the  son  of  Moses,  constructively 
the  grandson  of  Moses. 

Such  are  the  facts  we  have  to  deal  with  in  these  old  Hebrew 
genealogies — omissions,  exceptions,  substitutions,  and  imputa- 
tive reckonings.  There  is  neither  sense  nor  candor  in  taking  one 
or  two  of  these  facts  and  considering  them  apart  from  the  class 
to  which  they  belong  and  from  Hebrew  ideas  and  usages,  and 
founding  upon  them  the  charge  of  impossibility  and  error. 

It  is  perhaps  not  possible  to  explain  all  the  peculiarities  and 
difficulties  connected  with  the  Hebrew  genealogies,  but  there  is 
one  principle  running  through  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Bible 
which  explains  many  of  them,  and  that  is  the  principle  of  sub- 
stitution, representation,  vicarious  agency.  Moses  is  declared 
to  have  spoken  to  all  the  congregation  of  Israel,  when  he  had 
addressed  only  their  representatives,  the  elders.*  David  is 
declared  to  have  killed  Uriah  with  the  sword  of  the  children  of 
Ammon."  Nebuchadnezzar  is  declared  to  have  slain  the  young 
men  of  Jerusalem  with  the  sword  and  to  have  carried  away  the 
vessels  and  treasures  of  the  temple  to  Babylon.^  Levi  paid 
tithes  in  Abraham  to  Melchisedec.  ^  The  legal  principle  that 
what  a  man  does  through  his  agent  he  himself  does  was  fully 
recognized  by  the  ancient   Hebrews.     Thej^  carried  into  their 

1  Matt.  1:8.  ^  jj.  Kings  8  :  24  ;  11 :  2  ;  12  :  21 ;  15  :  1.  =»  Matt.  1 :  11. 

*  Ex.  19  :  7-14,  25.       « II.  Sam.  12  :  9.         «  II.  Chr.  36  :  17, 18.         » Heb.  7  :  9,  10. 


78  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

every-day  life  the  ideas  of  the  responsibilities  and  liabilities  of 
substitutes,  representatives,  and  agents  that  are  recognized  in 
our  civil  courts.  This  fact  explains  several  peculiarities  in  the 
Hebrew  genealogies.  Hezron  and  Hamul,  grandsons  of  Judah, 
appear  to  have  been  substituted  for  his  sons  Br  and  Onan,  who 
died  in  Canaan.  The  two  former  are  therefore  placed  in  the 
family  register  among  those  who  went  down  into  Egypt.  Hence, 
too,  the  grandchildren  of  I^eah  are  represented  as  born  in  Padan- 
aram.  If  Jacob  ever  had  a  legal  residence  in  Canaan,  he  lost  it 
by  an  absence  of  twenty  years  and  by  his  living  in  Padan-aram 
during  that  time.  But  we  understand  that  he  never  had  a  legal 
home  and  residence  in  Canaan.  Abraham,  after  a  stay  of  about 
forty  years  in  that  country,  declared  himself  a  stranger  and 
sojourner.^  After  a  further  stay  of  some  years  in  Canaan  he 
did  not  still  regard  it  as  his  home  ;  for  in  directing  Eliezer  to  go 
to  Padan-aram  to  procure  a  wife  for  Isaac  he  said,  "Thou  shalt 
go  unto  my  country."  ^  The  only  possession  he  had  in  Canaan 
was  a  burying-place.  ^  Neither  to  him  nor  to  any  of  the  patriarchs 
did  the  Lord  give  in  Canaan,  aside  from  Machpelah,  as  much  as 
a  footbreadth  of  the  soil.  The  grant  of  Canaan  to  the  Hebrews 
was  all  prospective.  In  the  patriarchal  age  it  was  theirs  indeed, 
but  only  in  the  sense  that  they  sojourned  in  it. 

There  were  special  reasons  for  regarding  Jacob  as  belonging  to 
Padan-aram.  He  lived  in  that  country  twenty  years.  He  was 
connected  with  one  of  the  families  of  that  country,  both  as  an 
employee  and  by  a  double  marriage.  All  his  children  but  one 
were  born  there.  Padan-aram  was  then  Jacob's  home  and  coun- 
try. In  Canaan  he  was,  like  his  fathers,  a  stranger  and  sojourner ; 
hence  Benjamin,  though  actually  born  in  Canaan,  and  also  his 
grandchildren  born  in  Canaan,  are  put  down  in  the  family  regis- 
ter as  born  in  Padan-aram.  This  very  same  thing  is  done  in  our 
times  and  country.  The  children  born  of  American  parents  in 
foreign  lands  are  counted  as  born  in  our  own  country.  All  such 
persons  are  enrolled  as  home-born  citizens — registered  as  born  at 
home. 

Dinah  and  Serah  are  placed  among  the  sons  and  grandsons 
doubtless  because  they  were  accorded  the  rights  of  sons.  There 
was  no  place  in  the  family  register  for  women,  and  hence,  if 
recognized  at  all,  their  names  must  be  placed  among  those  of  the 
men.     To  be  sure,  the  names  Leah,  Rachel,  Zilpah,  and  Bilhah 

» Gen.  23:4.  »  Gen.  24:  4.  ^^en.  23:4. 


CLAIMED    DIFFICULTIES  79 

are  mentioned,  but  only  incidentally,  to  designate  their  sons. 
They  are  not  cou7ited. 

Finally,  though  perhaps  not  all  difficulties  can  be  removed,  we 
know  enough  to  repel  the  charge  of  contradiction  and  falsehood. 

//.     The  I?icrease  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt. 

A  second  difficulty  is  found  by  the  skeptical  critics  in  the 
account  of  the  increase  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt.  The  number 
of  Jacob's  company  at  the  time  of  the  migration  is  said  to  have 
been  seventy.  At  the  time  of  the  exodus  the  number  of  the 
Israelites  is  given  as  about  six  hundred  thousand  men,  besides 
a  mixed  multitude  that  went  up  with  them.^  Counting  the 
whole  population  as  about  four  times  more  numerous  than  the 
able-bodied  men,  we  have  two  millions  as  the  number  of  the 
Israelites  at  the  time  of  the  exodus.  It  is  maintained  by  the 
analytic  critics  that  this  presupposes  an  impossible  rapidity  of 
increase  during  the  sojourn  in  Egypt.  Voltaire  declared  it  to  be 
an  unreasonable  supposition  that  a  nation  should  increase  from 
seventy  persons  to  two  millions  in  two  hundred  and  fifteen 
years.  2  Colenso,  the  arithmetical  critic,  Reuss,  and  others  have 
urged  the  same  objection. 

This  objection  is  based  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  sojourn  in 
Egypt  continued  only  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years.  If  it  con- 
tinued four  hundred  and  thirty  years,  the  objection  is  without 
force.  The  considerations  which  favor  the  longer  period  are  as 
follows : 

1.  The  divine  declaration  to  Abraham,  "Know  of  a  surety 
that  thy  seed  shall  be  a  stranger  in  a  land  that  is  not  theirs,  and 
shall  serve  them ;  and  they  shall  afflict  them  four  hundred 
years.  "3  These  words  do  not  fix  the  precise  duration  of  the 
sojourn,  but  of  the  oppression.  The  descendants  of  Abraham 
were  to  be  afflicted  during  a  period  designated  by  the  round 
number  of  four  hundred  years.  This  is  irreconcilable  with  the 
hypothesis  that  the  entire  residence  in  Egypt  lasted  only  two 
hundred  and  fifteen  years.  The  Israelites  were  not  oppressed 
during  the  first  years  of  their  stay  in  Egypt. 

2.  The  longer  period  is  favored  by  a  further  declaration  made 
to  Abraham :  '  *  But  in  the  fourth  generation  they  shall  come 
hither  again."  "*     The  sojourn  in  Egypt  was  to  continue  during 

1  Ex.  12 :  37,  38.      *  Dictionnaire  Philosophique,  Mcnse,  Sec.  iii.      ^Gen.  15  :  13. 
*  Gen.  15:16. 


8o  MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

four  generations.  But  what  is  the  duration  of  one  generation  ? 
We  are  not  to  judge  of  the  length  of  time  thus  designated  by  the 
duration  of  the  generation  in  our  times,  nor  even  in  the  time  of 
Moses.  Since  this  language  was  addressed  to  Abraham,  its 
meaning  to  him  is  its  meaning  now.  Terah,  Abraham's  father, 
lived  two  hundred  and  five  years,  and  Abraham  himself  one 
hundred  and  seventy-five  years.  Isaac  was  born  when  Abraham 
was  one  hundred  years  old,  and  died  at  the  age  of  one  hundred 
and  eighty.  Abraham's  own  generation,  counted  from  his  birth 
to  the  birth  of  his  son,  was  a  century  in  duration.  Four  gener- 
ations are  equivalent,  therefore,  to  four  hundred  years. 

3.  Clearly.  Stephen  understood  these  predictions  as  indicat- 
ing that  the  Israelites,  the  posterity  of  Abraham,  should  endure 
oppression  in  a  foreign  land  four  hundred  years.  "And  God 
spake  on  this  wise.  That  his  seed  should  sojourn  in  a  strange 
land;  and  that  they  should  bring  them  into  bondage,  and 
entreat  them  evil  four  hundred  years." ^  Here,  and  in  Genesis, 
the  sojourn  is  spoken  of  as  to  be,  not  in  Canaan,  but  in  a  foreign 
land ;  and  it  is  not  Abraham,  nor  Isaac,  nor  Jacob,  but  Abra- 
ham's posterity  that  is  to  be  enslaved  and  afilicted  during  four 
generations  and  four  hundred  years,  and  in  a  foreign  land. 

The  skeptical  critics,  of  course,  contemn  all  predictive  utter- 
ances as  unreal  and  fictitious.  But  aside  from  their  prophetic 
character,  such  utterances  are  valuable  as  testimonies  of  Jewish 
authors  and  people  to  the  duration  of  the  sojourn  and  oppres- 
sion in  Eg3^pt. 

4.  "  Now  the  sojourning  of  the  children  of  Israel,  who  dwelt 
in  Egypt,  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years."-  The  Revised 
Version  reads  "which  they  sojourned  in  Egypt,"  instead  of 
"who  dwelt  in  Egypt."  Colenso  objects  to  the  new  rendering, 
because  it  clearly  makes  all  the  sojourning  spoken  of  take  place 
in  Egypt,  while  he  thinks  that,  according  to  the  old  rendering, 
the  sojourning  may  have  been  partly  in  Canaan.  Colenso,  how- 
ever, admits  that  the  rendering  "who  dwelt  in  Egypt"  is 
awkward,  and  that  the  original  words  may  be  more  naturally 
translated  "which  they  sojourned  in  Egypt,"  as  in  the  Revised 
Version.  He  admits,  too,  that  this  is  the  rendering  of  the  Vul- 
gate, Chaldaic,  Syriac,  and  Arabic  versions.  (He  might  have 
added  the  Septuagint,^  German,  Spanish,  and  French  versions.) 

1  Acts  7:6.  « Ex.  12  :  40. 

3  So  far  as  the  phrase  under  consideration  is  concerned. 


CI.AIMED    DIFFICULTIES  8l 

The  reason  that  Colenso  assigns  for  adhering  to  the  confessedly- 
awkward  and  less  natural  rendering  is  that  otherwise  he  must 
find  the  Apostle  Paul  in  error,  and  must  also  find  some  mistakes 
in  the  genealogy  of  Moses.  ^  Here  is  an  admirable  spectacle,  in- 
deed. A  man  who  denies  plenary  inspiration  and  maintains 
that  the  Bible  abounds  in  errors,  a  man  who  is  engaged  in  an 
effort  to  showthat  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Book  of  Joshua  are 
historically  untrustworthy, — such  a  one  adhering  to  an  awkward 
translation  and  rejecting  a  more  natural  one,  in  order  that  he 
may  not  charge  mistakes  on  Paul  and  the  Pentateuch  !  It  is 
evident,  however,  that  Colenso  was  unwilling  to  give  up  *'the 
awkward"  rendering,  because,  in  that  case,  he  would  be  com- 
pelled to  admit  that  the  whole  sojourn  of  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  took  place  in  Egypt,  and  to  give  up  the  argument 
drawn  from  the  increase  of  the  Israelites  against  the  historical 
integrity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Reuss,  however,  who  was  much  superior  to  Colenso  in  schol- 
arship, and  even  perhaps  more  skeptical,  makes  no  attempt  to 
bend  this  passage  to  suit  his  own  views,  but  translates  as  follows  : 
"Or,  les  Israelites  avaient  sejourneen E^gypte pendant  quarte cent 
trente  ans,  et  ce  fut  an  bout  de  quartre  cent  trente  ans,  ce  jour-la 
meme,  que  le  peuple  de  Dieu  sortit  en  corps  du  pays  d'P^gypte  "  ^ 
("Now,  the  Israelites  had  sojourned  in  Egypt  during  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years,  and  it  was  at  the  end  of  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years,  on  the  very  day,  that  the  people  of  God  went  out  as  a  body 
from  the  land  of  Egypt").  ReUss  admits  that  we  have  here  an 
express  and  clear  declaration  that  the  Israelites  sojourned  in  Egypt 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years,  and  his  way  of  setting  aside  this 
testimony  is  by  asserting  that  there  was  a  divergent  tradition. 
Kuenen  also  admits  the  representation  here  to  be  that  the  sojourn 
in  Egj'pt  lasted  four  hundred  and  thirty  years,  but  claims  this  to 
be  inconsistent  with  the  exodus  in  the  fourth  generation,  and 
talks  about  the  passage  as  being  the  work  of  a  redactor.^  But 
other  analytic  critics,  as  Kautzsch  and  his  colleagues,  admit  the 
reading,  attributing  it  to  P,  without  sa3'ing  anything  about  a 
redactor.*  That  we  have  an  express  declaration  in  Exodus  12  :  40 
making  the  duration  of  the  sojourn  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years,  is  too  plain  to  be  denied  by  most  of  the  critics. 

'^Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua,  pp.  149,  150. 

^L'Histoire  Sainte,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  •>'),  ,30.  ^  Hexateuch,  p.  331. 

*  Heilige  Sehrift  des  Alien  Testaments,  !>.  68. 


82  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  in  the  Septuagint  Version  there  is  a 
various  reading  of  the  passage,  as  follows :  "Now  the  sojourn- 
ing of  the  children  of  Israel,  which  they  sojourned  in  Egypt 
and  in  Canaan,  was  four  hundred  years."  The  words  ''and  in 
Canaan  "  are  without  support,  and  are  not  insisted  on  by  any  of 
the  critics. 

5.     "X:"^^ genealogies  favor  the  longer  period. 

We  have  already  adverted  to  the  prophetic  declaration  that  the 
Israelites  should  return  to  Canaan  in  the  fourth  generation.^ 
We  have  already  shown  that,  owing  to  the  length  of  human 
life  in  Abraham's  time,  a  generation  must  have  meant  to  him  a 
period  of  one  hundred  years  or  more.  Besides,  in  immediate 
connection  with  the  declaration  above  referred  to,  it  was 
expressly  said  that  the  descendants  of  Abraham  should  be 
afflicted  in  a  foreign  land  four  hundred  years.  The  four  gen- 
erations, then,  must  cover  four  centuries. 

We  are  reminded,  however,  that  there  are  in  the  genealogy  of 
Moses  biit  three  names  (Amram,  Kohath,  and  Levi)  between 
him  and  Jacob,  and  that  therefore  Moses  and  the  exodus  must 
have  been  much  less  than  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after 
the  migration  to  Egypt.  ^  But,  as  we  have  already  pointed  out, 
in  the  Hebrew  genealogies  names  are  frequently  omitted,  the 
name  of  a  grandson  or  of  a  more  distant  descendant  being  sub- 
stituted for  that  of  the  son ;  and  it  can  be  shown  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt  that  names  are  omitted  in  the  genealogy  of 
Moses. 

We  have  already  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  Chronicles 
there  are  ten  names  given  between  Jacob  and  Joshua.^  As 
Joshua  was  by  one  generation  later  than  Moses,  the  latter  must 
have  been  nine  generations  later  than  Jacob.  It  is  in  vain  that 
the  skeptical  critics  cry  out  against  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
chronicler  in  this  matter,  for  similar  testimony  is  given  else- 
where. In  the  Book  of  Joshua*  five  names  are  given  between 
Jacob  and  Zelophehad,  the  latter  of  whom  died  before  Moses.  ^ 
This  places  Zelophehad  at  six  generations  after  Jacob.  Pre- 
cisely the  same  names  are  twice  given  in  the  accounts  of  the 
descent  of  Zelophehad  contained  in  the  Book  of  Numbers,  Thus 
we  have  four  witnesses  to  the  fact  that  there  were  more  than 
four  generations  between  the  migration  to  Egypt  and  the  exodus. 
One  witness  does,  indeed,  give  four  genealogical  names  as  inter- 

1  Gen.  15 :  16.     « Ex.  6 :  16-20.      ^  I.  Chr.  7 :  22-27.     *  Josh.  17:3.     ^  N  um.  27 :  3. 


CLAIMED    DIFFICULTIES  83 

vening  between  these  two  events,^  three  witnesses  give  each  six 
such  names,  2  and  one  gives  ten.^  In  view  of  the  fact  that  in 
the  Hebrew  genealogical  registers  names  were  frequently  omitted, 
the  name  of  grandson,  great-grandson,  or  of  a  still  remoter  de- 
scendant being  substituted  for  that  of  the  son,  it  is  seen  that 
there  is  no  contradiction  between  these  witnesses,  and  that  the 
testimony  of  the  one  who  gives  the  largest  number  of  intervening 
names  may  be  accepted  without  impeaching  the  veracity  or  the 
accuracy  of  the  others.  This  view  is  confirmed  b}^  the  testimony 
of  Genesis,  which  states  that  the  Israelites  were  to  be  oppressed 
in  a  foreign  land  four  hundred  years,'*  and  were  to  be  absent 
from  Canaan  during  four  generations,  each  of  them  being  of  the 
length  of  a  generation  in  the  time  of  Abraham. 

6.  Another  consideration  in  favor  of  the  longer  period  is  the 
statement  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  "And  this  I  say,  that  the  cove- 
nant, that  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law,  which 
was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul."  ^  It 
is  maintained  by  Colenso  that  the  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
spoken  of  by  the  apostle  includes  the  residence  of  the  patriarchs 
in  Canaan,  as  well  as  that  of  their  descendants  in  Egypt.  But 
the  apostle  does  not  allude  to  the  law  as  given  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  after  the  covenant  was  made  with  Abraham.  He 
does  not  mention  the  makmg  of  the  covenant  at  all,  but  the  con- 
firmation of  it.  ' '  The  law%  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  after. ' '  After  what  ?  Not  after  the  making  of  the  cove- 
nant, but  after  it  was  confirmed.^  Now  the  covenant  was  con- 
firmed several  times.  The  last  confirthation  before  the  giving  of 
the  law  took  place  just  before  the  descent  into  Eg3^pt.^  The 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years  mentioned  by  the  apostle,  there- 
fore, date  from  the  migration,  and  designate  the  duration  of  the 
sojourn  in  Egypt. 

7.  Josephus  in  one  place ^  (unless  we  have  a  false  reading) 
follows  the  reading  or  gloss  of  the  Septuagint  in  Exodus  12  :  40, 
but  in  two  other  places  he  expressly  declares  that  the  Israelites 
suffered  oppression  in  Egypt  four  hundred  years.  ^  In  one  of 
these  he  records  this  declaration  as  having  been  previousl}-  made 
by  himself  in  an  oral  address,  thus  virtually  reaffirming  it. 
Though,  then,  our  Jewish  author  does  indeed  quote  the  declara- 

^  Ex.  6:16-20.  '  Num.  26 :  28-33  ;  27  :  1 ;  Josh.  17 :  3.  =>  I.  Chr.  7 :  22-27. 

*  Gen.  15  :  13.  »  Gal.  3  :  17.  «  Gen.  46  :  1-3.  ^  Antiquities,  2  :  15 :  2. 

«  Antiquities,  2:9:1;   Wars,  5:9:4. 


84  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

tion  of  the  Septuagint  in  favor  of  the  shorter  period,  he  j^et  three 
times  contradicts  it  by  aflB.rming  that  the  oppression  in  Egypt 
lasted  four  hundred  years.  Thus  his  testimony  is  decidedly  in 
favor  of  the  longer  period  of  four  hundred  and  thirty  years. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  this  was  the  duration  of  the  sojourn  in 
Bgypt. 

And  this  is  a  complete  answer  to  the  objection  which  the 
analytic  critics  draw  from  the  large  increase  of  the  Israelites  in 
Egypt.  Though  numbering  at  first  only  seventy  persons,  they 
might  readily  grow  into  a  nation  of  two  millions  in  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years.  The  ratio  of  increase  in  that  case  would  not 
be  so  great  as  that  of  the  population  of  the  United  States  during 
the  last  century. 

But  even  on  the  hypothesis  of  the  shorter  period,  the  increase 
of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt  is  not  by  any  means  incredible.  In 
two  hundred  and  fifteen  years  there  might  be  six  generations, 
each  of  the  duration  of  thirty-six  years,  very  nearly.  Jacob  had 
twelve  sons.  These  had  all  together  fift3^-three  sons,  or,  on  the 
average,  four  and  a  half  apiece.  It  is  not  necessary  to  asiume 
the  ratio  of  increase  in  Jacob's  immediate  faniil}^  (twelve  to  one), 
nor  even  the  half  of  it,  as  the  standard  of  increase  in  succeeding 
generations.  If  we  assume  the  average  increase  to  be  five  to 
one,  which  is  a  fraction  above  the  increase  among  Jacob's  grand- 
sons, provided  all  the  names  are  given  in  the  family  register 
(which  is  by  no  means  certain),  then  in  the  two  hundred  and 
sixteenth  year,  and  in  the  sixth  generation,  these  fifty-three 
grandsons  would  have  had  a  posterity  numbering  828,125  males. 
This  number,  together  with  the  survivors  of  the  preceding  gen- 
erations, might  certainly  have  furnished  six  hundred  thousand 
able-bodied  men.  If  the  rate  of  increase  in  Jacob's  immediate 
family  is  taken  as  the  standard,  then  his  fifty-three  grandsons 
would  have  had  1,099,008  male  descendants  even  in  the  fourth 
generation.  Again,  Jacob  and  his  four  wives  increased  from  five 
to  seventy  persons,  male  and  female,  in  about  fifty  years,  even 
on  the  supposition  that  he  had  but  one  daughter  and  one  grand- 
daughter (which  is  not  probable).  The  ratio  of  increase  in  this 
case  is  seventy  to  five,  or  fourteen  to  one,  every  fifty  years.  On 
this  basis  of  calculation,  Jacob's  company  of  seventy  persons 
would  have  increased  to  2,689,120  in  two  hundred  years.  Thus, 
even  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  continued  only 
two  hundred  and  fifteen  years,  the  increase  of  the  Israelites  to 


CLAIMED    DIFFICULTIES  85 

two  millions  of  people  was  not  impossible,  and  hence  is  not 
incredible. 

Some  of  the  skeptics  confound  the  improbable  with  the  im- 
possible and  the  incredible.  The  impossible  is  what  cannot 
come  to  pass ;  the  incredible  is  what  ca?tnot  be  believed.  Many 
improbable  things  not  only  are  possible,  but  do  actually  come  to 
pass.  Indeed,  improbable  things  are  occurring  almost  continu- 
ally. It  was  possible,  though  antecedently  improbable,  that  the 
Israelites  in  Egypt  should  increase  from  seventy  persons  to  two 
millions — from  sixty-eight  males  to  six  hundred  thousand  able- 
bodied  men.  It  is  so  represented  in  the  sacred  record,  which  de- 
clares that  God  caused  the  very  efforts  of  the  Egyptians  to 
restrict  the  growth  of  the  Hebrew  nation  to  result  in  their  multi- 
plication.^ The  skeptical  critic  may,  if  he  chooses,  deny  the 
superintending  providence  of  God,  but  he  does  so  in  opposition 
not  only  to  the  consensus  of  Christian  people,  but  also  to  the 
common  judgment  of  mankind. 

Besides,  the  sacred  record  declares,  as  the  ablest  of  the  ana- 
lytic critics  admit,  that  the  Israelites  sojourned  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years  in  Egypt,  and  that  six  or  even  ten  generations 
intervened  between  the  migration  and  the  exodus.  Colenso  sup- 
poses that  the  ratio  of  increase  of  the  males  was  three  to  one, 
and,  counting  the  grandsons  of  Jacob  as  fifty-one  in  number,  he 
finds  the  males  in  the  fourth  generation  to  number  only  one 
thousand  three  hundred  and  seventy-seven,  instead  of  six  hun- 
dred thousand.^  But  if  he  had  based  his  calculation  on  the 
hypothesis  of  the  longer  period  for  the  sojourn  (four  hundred 
and  thirty  years)  and  ten  generations  of  forty -three  years'  dura- 
tion each,  he  would  have  found  the  tenth  generation  to  number 
in  males  1,003,833,  and,  of  course,  the  whole  population  to  be 
double  that  number,  or  about  two  millions. 

The  difficulty  we  are  dealing  with  exists  only  in  the  minds  of 
skeptics  and  analytics. 

///.    Number  of  the  First-born. 

The  critics  found  one  of  their  objections  to  the  trustworthiness 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  its  Mosaic  authorship  on  the  number  of 
the  first-born  among  the  Israelites,  as  compared  with  the  whole 
population.  The  number  of  the  first-born  males  a  month  old 
and  upward  is  given  as  22,2^2, ;  ^  the  number  of  able-bodied  men 

» Ex.  1 :  12,  20.  «  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshiuz,  p.  166.  ^  Num.  r, :  43. 


86  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE    PENTATEUCH 

was  603,550  ;  ^  the  whole  population  was  more  than  two  millions, 
and  the  number  of  males  presumably  over  one  million.  There 
was,  then,  only  one  first-born  to  eighty-eight  of  the  entire  popu- 
lation. As  the  number  of  the  first-born  could  not  be  less  than 
the  number  of  families,  and  also  the  number  of  mothers, 
there  must  have  been  eighty-eight  persons  in  every  family,  on 
the  average,  and  each  mother  must  have  had,  on  the  average, 
eighty-eight  children.  This  is  a  statement  of  the  difficulty  in 
the  strongest  terms.  Reuss  makes  the  average  family  consist  of 
one  hundred  persons,  but  brings  the  number  down  to  fifty-five, 
and  again  to  twenty-seven.  ^  Wellhausen  fixes  the  number  at 
fort\'.^  Colenso  varies  between  the  numbers  forty-two  and  thirty 
for  each  family. 

There  are  several  considerations  which  help  to  remove  the 
difficulty. 

1.  One  of  these  is  that,  in  the  generation  that  immediately 
preceded  the  numbering,  the  male  children,  including  the  first- 
born, had  been  destroyed  according  to  the  decree  of  the  Egyptian 
king.  Doubtless  in  this  way  marriage  and  increase,  for  some 
time  before  the  exodus,  had  been  checked,  if  not  prevented. 
Reuss,  on  account  of  "the  generation  which  could  not  contribute 
to  the  increase  of  births,"  reduces  the  proportion  of  the  popula- 
tion to  the  first-born  from  one  hundred  and  eleven  to  one,  down 
to  fifty-five  to  one.  4 

2.  In  many  families,  perhaps  in  one-half,  the  first-born  was  a 
girl.  It  would  seem  that  the  oldest  son  in  such  cases  was  not 
counted  as  the  first-born,  for  the  reason  that  he  did  not  "open 
the  matrix."  ^  Reuss  admits  the  force  of  this  consideration, 
and  on  account  of  it  reduces  the  proportion  from  fifty-five  to 
twenty-seven. 

3.  There  were  some  families  in  which  the  children  were  all 
daughters.  In  such  cases  surely  no  first-born  was  counted,  at 
least  if  the  father  was  not  a  first-born. 

4.  In  some  families  the  first-born  had  been  removed  by  death 

before  the  census  was  taken.     Even  Colenso  admits  the  force  of 

this  consideration.     He  supposes  that   one  out   of  everj-  four 

among  the  first-born   had  died  before  the  numbering,  and  he 

reduces  in  this  way  the  supposed  average  number  in  a  family  to 

thirty  persons.^ 

1  Num.  1 :  46.       ^  Note  on  Num.  3 :  43,  and  Int.,  p.  87.       ^  Prolegomena,  p.  364. 
*  UHisioire  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  87.  ^  Num.  3  :  12. 

«  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua,  pp.  144,  145. 


CIvAIMED    DIFFICUI^TIES  87 

5.  It  is  a  question  whether  the  first-born  of  the  wife,  or  only 
the  first-born  of  the  husband,  was  counted.  Polygamy  prevailed 
to  some  extent  among  the  ancient  Hebrews.  If  a  man  had 
several  wives,  the  first  child  of  his  first  wife,  at  least  if  a  male, 
was  counted  as  his  first-born.  But  was  the  first  child  of  each  of 
his  other  wives  counted  as  a  first-born  ?  If  a  man  had  a  dozen 
wives,  who  all  had  children,  did  he  have  a  dozen  first-borns? 
Again,  suppose  that  a  man  had  two  wives  in  succession,  marry- 
ing the  second  after  the  death  of  the  first,  and  that  both  had 
children ;  had  this  man,  according  to  law,  two  first-borns  in  his 
family,  both  of  whom  he  must  redeem  by  the  payment  of  the 
prescribed  sum? 

Certainly  the  law  in  some  places  does  seem  to  require  the 
enumeration  and  redemption  of  the  first-born  not  of  the  hus- 
band only,  but  also  of  each  and  all  of  his  wives.  "Sanctify 
unto  me  all  the  first-born,  whatsoever  openeth  the  womb."^ 
This,  at  finst  view,  seems  to  include  all  the  first-born,  male  and 
female,  both  of  the  husband  and  of  the  wife  and  of  all  the  wives. 
Yet  it  is  clear  that  this  law  is  to  be  understood  with  limitations. 
First-born  females  were  not  included.  ' '  Number  all  the  first- 
born of  the  males.  "^  And  a  few  verses  farther  on,  the  enumera- 
tion is  again  restricted  to  the  males  among  the  first-born.'  We 
understand,  too,  that  the  enumeration  was  again  limited  to  one 
first-born  in  a  man's  family,  and  was  not  extended  to  the  chil- 
dren of  all  the  wives.  Abraham  had  three  w4ves  and  issue  by 
them  all,  yet  he  had  but  one  first-born.  Jacob  had  but  one  first- 
born among  his  four  sets  of  children  by  his  four  wives.  The 
Hebrew  law  forbade  a  man  to  make  the  son  of  a  favorite  wife  his 
first-born,  instead  of  the  real  first-born.* 

We  think  the  evidence  preponderates  in  favor  of  the  view  that 
only  one  first-born  was  counted  in  a  man's  family,  and  that  the 
disproportion  between  the  number  of  the  first-born  and  the  whole 
population  is  to  be  correspondingly  discounted. 

6.  In  many  cases  the  first-born  in  his  father's  family  was 
married  and  had  a  first-born  son  of  his  own.  His  father  might 
not  have  been  a  first-born  or  might  be  dead.  His  mother, 
brothers,  and  sisters  might  still  be  living.  Was  this  man 
counted  in  the  enumeration  of  the  first-born  along  with  his 
own  first-bom?  Were  there  two  first-borns  counted  in  this 
man's  family?    In  such  cases  in  Egypt,  on  the  evening  of  the 

1  Ex.  13:2.  ■  "Num.  3:40.  ^ Num.  3:43,  *Deut.  21:16. 


88  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE)    P^NTATEIUCH 

Passover,  did  God  slay  two  first-borns  in  one  family,  father  and 
son?  It  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  first-born,  who 
was  himself  the  head  of  a  family  and  had  a  first-born  to  be 
counted  and  redeemed,  would  be  exempt  from  the  enumeration. 
In  that  case,  then,  only  unmarried  first-borns  would  be  counted, 
and  the  enumeration  would  be  limited  mainly  to  the  first-borns 
under  twenty  or  twenty-one  years  of  age. 

7.  There  is  reason,  we  think,  to  believe  that  the  law  in  regard 
to  the  first-born  was  not  applied  to  those  who  were  born  before  its 
enactment. 

It  was  enacted  just  before  the  exodus,  at  the  time  of  the 
destruction  of  the  first-born  in  Egypt.  In  consequence  of  this 
event  the  Lord  claimed  the  first-born  among  the  Israelites  as 
belonging  specially  to  himself.^  The  language  of  the  statute 
seems  to  indicate  that  it  was  intended  to  apply  only  to  the  cases 
that  should  occur  after  its  enactment :  * '  whatsoever  openeth  the 
womb,"  "all  that  openeth  the  matrix,  being  males,"  2  — not 
those  who  had  already  opened  the  w^omb,  that  is,  were  born 
before  the  law  was  enacted.  This  law,  then,  was  not  ex  post  facto 
—  it  was  not  retroactive. 

Now  the  time  intervening  between  the  exodus  and  the  num- 
bering of  the  first-born  was  not  much  more  than  thirteen 
months.^  The  number  of  the  first-born  (22,273)  may  seem  too 
large  to  have  been  all  born  within  that  time.*  It  presupposes 
44,546  marriages,  one  marriage  to  every  forty-four  of  the  popu- 
lation, since  about  one-half  of  the  first-borns  would  be  females ; 
but  the  oppression  in  Egypt,  and  Pharaoh's  decree  that  all  new- 
born Hebrew  male  children  should  be  drowned,  would  certainly 
very  much  decrease  the  marriages  during  the  time  more  imme- 
diately preceding  the  exodus.  The  result  of  deliverance  from 
bondage  and  from  the  king's  cruel  decree  would  naturally  be  a 
vast  number  of  marriages  immediately  after  the  exodus.  The 
people  had  not  much  to  attend  to  besides  courtship  and  marriage. 

8.  In  the  last  place,  according  to  the  law,  the  first-born  males 
above  five  years  of  age.  were  not  included  in  the  22,273.  The  proof 
of  this  proposition  is  as  follows  :  The  lycvites  were  taken  by  the 
Lord  instead  of  the  first-born.  But  there  were  22,273  first-borns 
and  only  22,000  Eevites.  The  two  hundred  and  seventy-three 
overplus  first-borns  were  redeemed  at  the  rate  of  five  shekels 
apiece.     It  was  expressly  enacted,  that  the  ransom  price  should 

» Ex.  13 : 1-16.  « Ex.  13 :  2, 12, 15.  ^  Num.  1:1.  *  Num.  3 :  43. 


CLAIMED    DIFFICULTIES  89 

be  "five  shekels  apiece  by  the  poll,  after  the  shekel  of  the 
sanctuary."^  It  is  also  stated  that  the  whole  amount  of  the  re- 
demption money  for  the  two  hundred  and  seventy-three  was  one 
thousand  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  shekels,  which  is  five 
shekels  per  head.  Now  the  law  expressly  declared  that  this 
should  be  the  ransom  price  for  a  person  from  a  month  old  to  five 
years  old.  ^  Since  the  overplus  first-borns  were  redeemed  at  the 
price  of  five  shekels  apiece,  and  since  this  was  the  ransom  price 
of  a  male  from  one  month  to  five  years  old,  while  that  for  a 
male  from  five  to  twenty  was  twenty  shekels,  ^  it  follows  that 
the  two  hundred  and  seventy-three  and  the  entire  twenty-two 
thousand  were  not  more  than  five  years  old.  This  is  corroborated 
by  the  view  presented  above  in  regard  to  the  law  not  reaching 
back  beyond  the  time  of  its  enactment.  But,  really,  no  corrobo- 
ration is  needed.  The  redemption  of  these  first-borns  at  the  rate 
of  five  shekels  apiece  proves  that  the}^  were  not  over  five  3-ears 
old.  If,  then,  there  were  more  than  twenty-two  thousand  first- 
borns five  years  old  and  under,  the  whole  number  of  first-born 
of  all  ages  must  have  been  twelve  or  fifteen  times  as  many,  and 
the  critics  are  relieved  of  all  difficulty  about  the  disproportion 
between  the  number  of  this  class  of  persons  and  that  of  the 
whole  population,  and  also  about  the  size  of  the  old  Hebrew 
families.  This  whole  difficult}^  as  presented  by  them,  is  founded 
solely  on  their  own  misapprehension. 

IV.    Sustena?ice  of  the  Cattle  and  Sheep  in  the  Wildei'ness. 

According  to  the  sacred  histor}^  the  Israelites  took  sheep  and 
cattle  with  them  out  of  Egj'pt.  They  had  "flocks  and  herds, 
even  very  much  cattle. "  *  At  Rephidim,  before  they  came  to  Sinai, 
"the  people  murmured  against  Moses,  and  said,  Wherefore  is 
this  that  thou  hast  brought  us  up  out  of  Eg3'pt,  to  kill  us  and 
our  children  and  our  cattle  with  thirst?"  '"  The  number  of  the 
sheep  possessed  b}'  the  Israelites  at  the  exodus  is  suggested  by 
the  observance  of  the  Passover.  The  number  of  lambs  necessary 
for  two  millions  of  people,  one  lamb  for  every  ten  persons,  would 
be  two  hundred  thousand.  The  number  of  sheep  would  be  three 
or  four  times  greater — six  or  eight  hundred  thousand.  The 
cattle  were  probably  also  numerous. 

How  did  these  flocks  and  herds  subsist  in  the  wilderness? 
How  did  the  Israelites  maintain  them?    Our  critics  hold  that 

>  Num.  3  :  46,  47.        «  Lev.  27  :  6.        ^  Lev.  27  :  5.        ■•  Ex.  12  :  38.        ^  ex.  17  :  3. 


90  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

they  were  not,  and  could  not  be,  maintained ;  that  the  Israelites 
had  no  sheep  and  cattle  at  the  exodus  —  at  any  rate  not  large 
numbers  of  them,  or,  if  they  had  many  sheep  and  cattle,  these 
perished  in  the  wilderness.  They  infer  that  in  either  case  the 
historical  accuracy  of  the  Pentateuch  is  gone,  and  that  therefore 
Moses  is  not  the  author  of  it. 

In  reply  to  the  question  how  the  flocks  and  herds  were  main- 
tained in  the  wilderness,  we  answer,  partly  by  natural  and 
partly  by  supernatural  means. 

The  Pentateuch  represents  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  as  furnishing 
sustenance  for  sheep  and  cattle,  and  not  as  being  altogether  covered 
with  barren  rocks  and  sand.  It  was  a  wilderness  or  desert,  indeed ; 
but  a  wilderness,  in  Bible  phrase,  is  merely  a  country  uninhabited, 
or  with  few  inhabitants.  It  may  be  either  fertile  or  barren.  Anah 
fed  the  asses  of  Zibeon,  his  father,  in  the  wilderness,  but  he  could 
not  have  done  so  if  there  had  been  no  grass  nor  fodder  there.  ^ 
Our  Saviour  fed  the  five  thousand  in  "a  desert  place,"  yet  there 
was  "much  grass  "  in  it.^  The  first  mention  made  of  the  wilder- 
ness of  Sinai  is  to  the  effect  that  Moses  used  it  as  a  pasture  ground 
for  the  sheep  of  his  father-in-law.  It  is  stated  that  "he  led  the 
flock  to  the  back  side  of  the  desert,  and  came  to  the  mountain  of 
God,  even  to  Horeb."^  Doubtless  the  Israelites,  when  they  came 
to  Sinai  and  Horeb,  found  pasturage  where  Moses  had  found  it 
before.  This  is,  indeed,  implied  in  the  fact  that  they  were  for- 
bidden to  let  their  flocks  and  herds  feed  before  the  mount.* 

Travelers  testify  that  there  are  vegetation  and  pasturage  in  this 
region.  Lepsius  speaks  of  ascending  Mount  Sinai,  ^  and  then  says, 
"Here,  to  my  astonishment,  between  the  points  into  which  the 
summit  is  divided,  I  found  a  small,  level  valley,  plentifully  sup- 
plied with  shrubs  and  herbs."  He  describes  the  Wady  Feiran,  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Sinai,  as  a  fertile  valley,  abounding  in  trees, 
herbs,  and  flowers.  ®  Ritter  speaks  of  this  valley  in  the  same  way, 
calling  it  a  garden,  park,  and  paradise.  He  also  speaks  of  other 
portions  of  the  peninsula  as  fertile  and  productive,  though  it  is  in 
general  a  barren  waste. '  Professor  Palmer  testifies  that  ' '  most  of 
the  valleys  contain  some  vegetation,"  and  that  "the  barest  and 
mOvSt  stony  hillside  is  seldom  entirely  destitute  of  vegetation."  ^ 

We  do  not  care  to  push  this  point  any  further.  We  deem  it 
sufficient  to  show  that  the  representations  of  the  Pentateuch  in 

1  Gen.  36  :  24.  ^  Matt.  14  :  15  ;  John  6  :  10.  =»  ex.  3:1.  *  Ex.  ;^  :  3. 

^  Mount  Serbal,  however.  «  Letters  from  Egypt,  etc.,  pp.  296,  305. 

'  Geography,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  301,  303.  «  The  Desert  of  the  Exodus,  pp.  33,  34. 


CI^AIMED    DIFFICULTIES  9 1 

regard  to  vegetation  and  pasturage  in  the  wilderness  are  fully 
sustained  by  modern  travelers  and  investigators.  We  do  not 
claim  that  the  flocks  and  herds  of  the  Israelites  were  sustained, 
or  could  have  been  sustained,  wholly  b}^  natural  means. 

Colenso  affirms  that  "there  was  no  miraculous  provision  of 
food  for  the  herds  and  flocks."  He  even  asserts  that  "they 
were  left  to  gather  sustenance  as  they  could,  in  that  inhospitable 
wilderness."  ^  Now  what  the  author  means  is,  that  according  to 
the  representations  of  the  Pentateuch  there  was  no  miraculous 
supply  of  food  for  the  sheep  and  the  cattle,  and  that  they  sub- 
sisted wholly  by  natural  means.  But  does  the  Pentateuch  really 
or  virtually  deny  that  there  was  any  miraculous  provision  for 
these  animals?  Is  silence  in  this  case  equivalent  to  a  denial? 
We  think  that,  on  the  contrarj^,  this  silence  is  to  be  interpreted, 
in  view  of  the  circumstances,  the  other  way.  The  Hebrews  at 
this  point  were  under  a  miraculous  dispensation.  The}^  were 
brought  out  of  Egypt  by  a  series  of  stupendous  miracles.  They 
crossed  the  Red  Sea  by  miracle.  The  cloud  which  led  them  by 
day,  and  the  fire  by  night,  were  miraculous.  Their  food  and 
drink,  the  manna  and  the  quails,  and  the  water  from  the  rock 
were  supplied  by  miracle.  Even  their  clothes  and  shoes  were 
preserved  by  miracle  and  made  to  last  for  forty  years.  And  yet 
are  we  to  assume  that  every  miracle  that  took  place  is  mentioned, 
and  that  silence  is  virtual  denial  ?  It  is  not  mentioned  that  the 
sheep  and  cattle  had  any  miraculous  supply  of  food  ;  therefore, 
there  was  none,  says  the  objector.  By  parity  of  reasoning  he 
might  conclude  that  the  sheep  and  cattle  did  not  go  through  the 
Red  Sea  as  on  dry  land,  but  swam  through,  on  the  right  and  left 
flank  of  their  masters.  At  Marah  the  people  were  about  to 
perish  with  thirst,  and  were  supplied  by  miracle,  but  not  a  word 
is  said  about  the  sheep  and  cattle.  Did  they  live  without  water  ?  ^ 
At  Massah  and  oMeribah  the  people  did  indeed  complain  that  not 
only  they  and  their  children,  but  also  their  cattle,  were  perishing 
with  thirst;  and  when  Moses  cried  to  the  Lord,  and  the  answer 
was,  "Thou  shalt  smite  the  rock,  and  there  shall  come  water  out 
of  it,  that  the  people  may  drink,"  ^  not  a  word  was  said  about 
water  for  the  sheep  and  cattle.  These  poor  animals  were  com- 
pelled to  live  without  water,  were  thc}^?  Is  that  the  way  in 
which  we  are  to  understand  the  record?  Mention  is  indeed  made 
of  a  miraculous  supply  of  water   for  the  sheep   and  cattle  at 

»  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshita,  p.  118.  *  Ex.  15  :  23-2i5.  =  Ex.  17  :  1-6. 


92  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

Kadesh.  God  said  to  Moses,  "Thou  shall  bring  forth  to  them 
water  out  of  the  rock :  so  thou  shalt  give  the  congregation  and 
their  beasts  drink."  ^  But  the  objector,  to  be  consistent,  ought 
here  to  find  additional  reason  for  believing  that  the  silence  about 
the  beasts  in  the  other  cases  proves  that  they  lived  on  without 
water  or  else  died.  Again,  the  objector  ought  to  say  that  though 
there  was  a  miraculous  supply  of  water  for  the  people,  at  Beer 
the  beasts  were  suffered  to  die  again.  ^ 

The  truth  is,  that  generally  the;  occurrence  of  miracles  is  not 
affirmed,  but  suggested.  It  is  not  said  that  the  sea  was  divided 
miraculously.  The  record  is,  that  "Moses  stretched  out  his  hand 
over  the  sea ;  and  the  Lord  caused  the  sea  to  go  back  by  a  strong 
east  wind  all  that  night,  and  made  the  sea  dry  land,  and  the  waters 
were  divided. ' '  ^  The  facts  are  stated  ;  the  miracle  is  only  inferred. 
Moses,  at  God's  command,  smote  the  rock  at  Horeb,  and  the  water 
gushed  out.  *  These  are  the  facts ;  the  miracle  is  suggested. 
Christ  said  to  the  man  with  the  withered  hand:  "Stretch  forth 
thine  hand.  And  he  stretched  it  forth  ;  and  it  w^as  restored  whole, 
like  as  the  other."  ^  The  facts  only  are  stated.  That  the  healing 
was  miraculous  is  purely  an  inference.  In  general,  miracles  are 
recorded  in  this  way.  Indeed,  we  may  say  that  in  most  cases  they 
are  not  recorded  at  all,  but  the  facts  which  suggest  them. 

Now  we  have  the  facts  recorded  which  suggest  the  miraculous 
supply  of  food  and  water  for  the  sheep  and  cattle  in  the  desert. 
The  Israelites  took  their  flocks  and  herds  with  them.  In  the 
wilderness  there  was  not  a  sufficient  supply  of  food  for  the  multi- 
tude of  beasts.  But  they  lived  ;  they  did  not  starve.  They  must, 
then,  have  had  a  supernatural  supply  of  food.  In  what  special 
way  this  supernatural  supply  of  food  was  furnished,  we  are  not 
informed.  God  may  have  caused  grass  to  spring  up  in  the  desert. 
The  Lord  does  sometimes  turn  a  desert  into  a  fruitful  land,  as  well 
as  a  fruitful  land  into  barrenness.  ^  It  seems  to  us  that  only  those 
who  disbelieve  in  miracles  are  likely  to  have  any  difficulty  in 
regard  to  the  sustenance  of  the  sheep  and  cattle  in  the  desert. 
Such  is  the  real  position  of  Reuss,  Graf,  Wellhausen,  and  Kuenen, 
the  ablest  and  most  distinguished  champions  of  the  analytic  crit- 
icism. Why  should  such  men  talk  or  write  about  the  question  of 
food  for  the  sheep  and  cattle,  while  they  know  well  that  their  skep- 
ticism in  regard  to  the  supernatural  and  to  miracles  gives  the  lie 
to  the  whole  Pentateuch  and  to  nearly  all  other  parts  of  the  Bible  ? 

>  Num.  20  :  8.  »  Num.  21 :  16.  =>  Ex.  14  :  21.  *  Ex.  17  :  6. 

6  Matt.  12  :  13.  «  Ps.  107  :  34-38. 


CHAPTER  VII 

IMAGININGS 

We  assign  to  this  class  those  objections  which  we  regard  as 
resting  on  purely  fanciful  grounds.  Some  of  the  objections 
urged  against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  involve 
no  unreasonable  interpretations,  nor  are  based  on  palpably  incor- 
rect representations;  but  some  of  the  objections  and  arguments 
employed  on  that  side  are  founded  on  unmitigated  misrepresen- 
tations, or  fanciful  views  and  interpretations.  We  therefore  call 
them  imagi?ii?tgs.     Some  of  these  we  will  notice. 

I.  Reuss  claims  that  the  account  of  the  dismissal  and  depart- 
ure of  Hagar  and  Ishmael  asserts  a  self-evident  impossibility, 
and  that  it  is  therefore  palpably  absurd.  If  he  is  correct  in  his 
representations,  Moses  did  not  write  this  account,  for  we  are 
quite  confident  that  he  did  not  write  nonsense.  Our  critic  con- 
strues the  account  in  question  to  mean  that  Hagar  carried  off  on 
her  shoulder  her  son  Ishmael,  her  big  boy  of  fourteen,  who,  in 
case  of  need,  might  have  carried  his  poor  mother.  ^  After 
making  this  statement  he  expresses  his  astonishment  by  an 
exclamation-point  enclosed  in  brackets.  This  is  pure  imagina- 
tion. It  is  neither  stated  nor  implied  that  Hagar  carried 
Ishmael,  but  the  very  opposite.  The  account  shows  that  Abra- 
ham gave  bread,  a  bottle  of  water,  and  Ishmael  to  Hagar,  and 
that  he  put  the  bottle  of  water  on  her  shoulder,  but  not  Ishmael.  ^ 
This  view  is  in  accordance  with  Reuss's  own  translation,  as 
follows  :  "Abraham  prit  du  pain  et  une  outre  remplie  d'eau  et 
donna  cela  a  Hagar,  en  les  mettant  sur  son  epaule,  ainsi  que  le 
gar9on,  et  la  renvoye"^  ("Abraham  took  bread  and  a  skin 
filled  with  water  and  gave  that  to  Hagar,  putting  them  on  her 
shoulder,  and  the  child,  and  sent  her  away").  According  to 
this  rendering,  it  is  not  necessary  to  understand  that  Abraham 
put  Ishmael,  as  well  as  the  bread  and  water-skin,  on  Hagar' s 
shoulder.  The  French  version  reads,  ' '  He  gave  to  her  also  the 
child." 

» L'Histoire  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  96.    « Gen.  21 :  14.    ^  L'HisKnre  Sainte,  Vol.  I.,  p.  367. 

93 


94  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

2.  A  fanciful  argument  has  been  drawn  from  the  military 
strength  of  the  Israelites  to  prove  the  unhistorical  character  of 
the  Pentateuch.  It  is  claimed  that  it  is  not  supposable  that  a  na- 
tion embracing  six  hundred  thousand  able-bodied  men  would 
submit  to  cruel  oppression  and  allow  their  new-born  babes  to  be 
drowned  without  forcible  resistance,  as  the  Israelites  are  said  to 
have  done.  Voltaire  began  this  kind  of  argument,  and  has  been 
followed  by  Reuss,  Colenso,  and  others.  This  is  another  argu- 
ment that  owes  all  its  plausibility  and  force  to  imagination. 
These  critics  imagine  the  six  hundred  thousand  able-bodied  men 
to  have  been  brave  warriors.  They  forget  that  slavery  had  had 
its  natural  effect  upon  them  and  had  made  them  cowards.  They 
were  so  unfit  for  w^ar  that  the  entrance  into  Canaan  was  neces- 
sarily postponed  forty  years,  in  order  that  the  generation  of  cow- 
ards might  die  off,  and  that  a  generation  that  had  not  experi- 
enced the  debasing  effects  of  slavery  might  arise.  It  is  related 
in  the  history  that  when  the  fugitive  Israelites  saw  their  late 
masters,  well-trained  warriors,  advancing  with  their  horses  and 
chariots  they  became  alarmed  and  cried  to  the  Lord  for  help. 
This  has  been  treated  by  some  of  the  critics  as  a  matter  of  re- 
proach to  the  Israelites,  or  rather  to  the  author  of  the  history-,  as 
if  such  conduct  were  incredible.  But  it  was  natural  that  when 
the  fugitive  slaves  saw  the  embattled  hosts  of  their  former  lords 
they  should  feel  and  act  just  as  represented.  Even  if  they  were 
armed,  they  were  without  military  organization,  officers,  and 
training.  They  were  no  better  than  a  mob.  They  knew  they 
were  helpless,  and  acted  accordingly.  The  critics,  if  they  were 
disposed,  might  learn  something  from  the  course  pursued  by 
the  vSlave  population  in  the  United  States  during  the  late 
Civil  War,  up  to  the  time  when  the  National  Government  began 
to  furnish  them  with  arms  and  officers.  In  number  they  were 
to  the  Israelites  about  as  two  to  one.  This  impeachment  of 
the  historical  accuracy  of  the  Pentateuch  on  the  ground  that 
it  is  incredible  that  the  Israelites  at  the  time  of  the  exodus 
were,  as  represented,  timid  and  submissive,  is  one  of  the  fanciful 
absurdities  that  have  been  perpetrated  in  the  name  of  biblical 
criticism. 

3.  Another  specimen  of  this  kind  of  criticism  is  found  in 
Reuss' s  attacks  on  the  personal  historj'-  of  Moses.  He  writes  as 
follows:  "Elle  presente  des  difficultes  qui  sont  de  nature  a 
etonner  ceux  qui  la  lisent  dans  la  supposition  que  c'est  lui-meme 


IMAGININGS  95 

qui  a  e-crit  ses  memoires"  ^  ("It  presents  difficulties  of  a  nature 
to  astonish  those  who  read  it  in  the  belief  that  he  himself 
wrote  his  own  memoirs").  Our  critic  endeavors  to  make  out 
inconsistency  and  confusion  by  arguing  as  follows  :  ( i )  In  one 
passage  but  one  son  of  Moses  is  mentioned  ;  in  another,  two  sons 
are  mentioned.  (2)  These  two  sons  must  have  been  infants  at 
the  time  of  Moses'  return  from  Midian  to  Egypt,  for  one  ass 
carried  them  and  their  mother ;  yet  how  could  they  still  be 
infants,  since  Moses  had  been  married  forty  years?  (3)  Moses, 
we  are  told,  had  married  an  Ethiopian  woman ;  but  who  was 
she  ?  w^as  this  a  recent  or  a  former  marriage  ?  were  Zipporah  and 
this  Ethiopian  woman  the  same  person  ?  ^ 

These  are  specimens  of  the  difficulties  in  the  history  of  Moses 
which  are  claimed  to  prove  that  he  did  not  write  it.  We  reply 
as  follows : 

( 1 )  The  mention  of  one  son  does  not  imply  that  there  were 
no  others.  When  the  birth  of  Moses  is  recorded,  no  allusion  is 
made  to  other  children  in  his  father's  family,  though  Miriam 
and  Aaron  were  born  before  him.  The  marriage  of  Aniram  and 
Jochebed  is  mentioned,  and  then  it  is  stated  that  "the  woman 
conceived,  and  bare  a  son,"  though  she  had  already  borne  a 
daughter  and  a  son.^  Why  does  not  the  critic  claim  inconsis- 
tency and  confusion  here?  Carlyle  states  that  Oliver  Cromwell, 
son  of  Robert  and  Elizabeth  Stewart  Cromwell,  was  born  April 
25,  1599.  *  In  the  coming  ages,  when  some  man  with  a  very  fine 
critical  instinct,  or  with  some  favorite  hypothesis  to  defend, 
reads  this  declaration,  and  then  a  little  further  on  reads  that 
Oliver  was  the  fifth  child  of  his  parents,  and  again,  further  on, 
reads  that  they  had  ten  children  in  all,  and  sees  their  names  in  a 
marginal  note,  he  will  perhaps  exclaim  :  "What  difficulty  and 
contradiction  have  we  here !  This  book  was  not  written  by 
Carlyle.  We  have  here  two  authors  and  a  redactor."  The 
futility  of  Reuss's  criticism  is  further  seen  from  the  fact  that 
the  language  he  cites  has  reference  to  the  birth  of  the  first-born 
of  Moses.  How  else  could  the  writer  do  than  use  the  singular 
number,  since  it  was  not  a  case  of  twins  ? 

( 2 )  Reuss  fails  to  show  that  the  sons  of  Moses  are  represented 
as  infants  at  the  time  of  the  return  to  Egypt.  The  fact  that  one 
of  them  had  not  been  circumcised  does  not  prove  anything  in 

>  UHistoire  Sainte,  Vol.  I.,  p.  82.  *  L'Histoire  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  8.3. 

3  Ex.  2  :  1,  2.  *  Life  and  Speeches  of  Oliver  Cromwell,  Vol.  I.,  p.  20. 


g6  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

regard  to  his  age ;  for  it  was  the  unusual  delay  of  the  circum- 
cision that  produced  the  diflSculty-^  Nor  does  the  statement  that 
Moses  set  his  wife  and  sons  "upon  an  ass"  prove  that  his  sons 
were  infants.  Reuss  gets  the  translation  right, — "  les  fit  monter 
I'ane  "  ('*  made  them  mount  the  ass  "), — but  quotes  it  incorrectly 
in  his  argumentation — ''7m  a?ie"  {'' afi  ass,"  or  ''one  ass"). 
Though  the  singular  number  is  employed,  there  may  have  been 
more  than  one  ass.  In  Hebrew,  as  in  English,  the  singular  is 
often  employed  to  suggest  the  plural.  Had  Noah's  ark  but  one 
window  ? "  Did  Jacob's  sons  take  each  but  one  ass  and  one  sack 
to  transport  corn  from  Egypt  to  Canaan  ?  ^  Did  Simeon  and  Levi, 
in  slaying  the  men  of  Shechem  with  the  edge  of  the  sword,  use 
but  one  weapon?*  We  have  such  forms  of  speech  in  English. 
When  cavalrymen  leap  into  the  saddle,  do  they  all  mount  one 
horse?  When  soldiers  in  battle  ruvsh  forward  sword  in  hand, 
have  they  all  but  one  hand  and  one  sword  ?  When  they  charge 
at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  have  the}^  but  a  single  weapon  ?  When 
Moses  put  his  family  on  the  ass,  he  did  not  necessarily  put  them 
all  on  one  ass ;  or  if  there  was  but  one  ass  in  the  case,  it  does  not 
follow  that  he  set  them  all  on  that  one  ass  at  the  same  time. 

(3)  After  all,  Gershom  and  Eliezer  may  have  been  small 
enough  to  ride  with  their  mother  on  one  ass.  In  combating 
this  idea  Reuss  will  have  it  that  Moses  was  married  and  had  a 
son  born  to  him  soon  after  he  fled  to  Midian.  This  notion, 
however,  is  not  in  the  record.  The  order  of  events,  as  there 
given,  is  as  follows  :  Moses'  flight  to  Midian,  his  dwelling  there, 
his  sitting  by  the  well  and  watering  Jethro's  sheep,  his  dwelling 
with  this  man,  his  marriage  to  one  of  his  daughters,  the  birth  of 
Gershom.^  All  these  events  are  crowded  into  the  small  space 
of  eight  verses.  Other  events,  among  them  the  birth  of  a  second 
son,  are  also  mentioned  as  occurring  before  the  return  to  Egypt.  ^ 
How  much  time  intervened  between  one  of  these  events  and 
another  is  unknown.  Moses  may  have  dwelt  ten,  twenty,  or 
thirty  years  in  Midian  before  he  sat  by  the  well.  He  may  have 
dwelt  several  years  with  Jetliro  before  he  married  Zipporah.  It 
is  possible  that  he  may  not  have  had  a  son  until  years  after  his 
marriage.  For  anything  that  is  contained  in  the  record,  Gershom 
and  Eliezer  may  have  been  born  near  the  close  of  the  residence 
in  Midian.     Esau  and  Jacob  were  born  twenty  years  after  Isaac's 

1  Ex.  4  :  25.  >»  Gen.  8:6.  =  Gen.  42 :  27. 

*  Gen.  34  :  26.  « Ex.  2  :  15-22.  «  Ex.  18  :  3. 


•      IMAGININGS  97 

marriage.  Isaac  was  born  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  after 
Abraham's  marriage.  From  all  these  considerations  it  is 
inferred  that  the  sons  of  Moses  may  have  been  very  small  boys 
at  the  time  of  the  return  to  Egypt. 

(4)  The  marriage  of  Moses  with  an  Ethiopian  (Cushite)i 
woman  is  not  inconsistent  with  anything  else  recorded  concern- 
ing him.  Zipporah  may  have  died,  and  the  Cushite  may  have 
been  a  second  wife.  Or  Moses  may  have  taken  a  second  wife 
while  Zipporah  was  still  living,  for  polygamy  by  him  is  not 
more  improbable  than  by  Abraham  and  Jacob.  Or  Zipporah  her- 
self may  have  been  the  Cushite  woman. 

4.  Another  imaginary  difiS.culty  is  brought  forward  b}'  Reuss 
in  regard  to  the  size  and  weight  of  the  tables  of  stone  on  which 
the  decalogue  was  written.  He  thinks  they  must  have  been  en- 
tirely too  large  and  heavy  for  Moses  to  carry.  He  supposes  that 
the  six  hundred  and  twenty  Hebrew  letters  embraced  in  the  deca- 
logue would  occupy  at  least  a  square  meter  and  a  half  of  surface, 
each  letter  occupying  twenty-five  square  centimeters.  ^  Accord- 
ing to  this  hypothesis  and  calculation,  the  six  hundred  and 
twenty  letters  of  the  Hebrew  decalogue  occupied  more  than  six- 
teen square  feet  of  surface,  and  each  table  must  have  been  more 
than  four  feet  long  and  two  feet  wide.  Stone  tables  of  such 
length  and  breadth,  with  corresponding  thickness,  would  likely 
be  too  heavy  for  Moses  to  carry.  ^  Reuss  calls  attention  to  the 
fact  that  Moses  was  eighty  years  old("un  octogenaire" ),  and 
reminds  us  that  Sinai  was  a  pretty  high  mountain.  He  forgets, 
or  disbelieves,  the  statement  that  up  to  the  time  of  Moses'  death 
"his  eye  was  not  dim,  nor  his  natural  force  abated. "^  But  we 
are  willing  to  admit  that  it  certainly  would  be  very  difficult  for 
Moses,  however  strong  he  might  be,  to  carry  two  large  slabs  of 
stone  from  the  top  of  Sinai  down  to  the  camp  of  the  Israelites, 
and  it  would  be  still  harder  for  him  to  carry  them  from  the  camp 
up  the  mountain's  side*  Why  did  not  our  critic  think  of  the 
last-mentioned  difficulty  ? 

But  the  hypothesis  on  which  the  above  calculation  is  based  is 
very  fanciful  and  extravagant.     Reuss  supposes  that  twenty-five 

1  Num.  12  :  1. 

'"Ce  texte  se  compose  de  620  lettres.  Avec  l'6criture  carr6e  actuelle,  ce 
texte,  en  ne  tenant  au  cun  compte  des  marges  et  des  interlignes  (la  separa- 
tion des  mots  n'etant  pas  d'usage)  aurait  demande  au  moins  un  metre  carr6 
et  denii  de  superficies,  m^rae  en  ne  calculant  pour  chaque  lettre  que  I'espace 
miniinede2ocni.  carr^s."— L^Huitoire  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  GO.  3X)eut.  34  :  7.  *  Ex.  34:4. 
7 


98        MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH 

square  centimeters  were  necessary  for  each  letter,  and  twenty- 
five  square  centimeters  are  eight  square  inches  and  a  fraction. 
Thus  Reuss  assigns  over  eight  square  inches  to  each  letter,  mak- 
ing it  more  than  two  and  one-half  inches  long  and  wide.  This 
is  utterly  unreasonable.  Even  the  old  so-called  uncial  letters 
were  generally  only  an  inch  in  length  and  breadth.  But  sup- 
pose that  the  letters  employed  in  writing  the  decalogue  occupied 
each  the  space  of  one  square  inch  ;  then  the  whole  surface  occu- 
pied by  them  would  be  six  hundred  and  twenty  square  inches,  a 
little  less  than  a  surface  twenty-five  inches  long  and  the  same 
in  width.  Two  tablets,  then,  each  two  feet  and  one  inch  long 
and  one  foot  and  one-half  inch  wide,  would  contain  the  six 
hundred  and  twenty  letters  of  the  decalogue.  But  there  is  an 
important  fact  which  Reuss  has  overlooked  or  ignored,  and  that 
is  that  the  tablets  were  written  on  both  sides.  Such  is  the 
express  statement :  ' '  The  tables  were  written  on  both  their  sides ; 
on  the  one  side  and  on  the  other  were  they  written.  "^  All  this 
explicitness  and  emphasis  of  declaration  are  lost  on  the  critic 
who  is  intent  on  proving  the  Pentateuch  historically  untrue.  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  tablets  were  written  on  both  sides,  we 
may  reduce  our  tablets  above  mentioned  to  one-half  their  size, 
that  is,  to  one  foot  and  one-half  inch  in  length  and  one  foot  and 
one-half  inch  in  width.  Tablets  so  diminutive  in  size  would,  of 
course,  be  of  little  thickness  and  weight.  Thus  the  tablets  on 
which  the  ten  commandments  were  written  need  not  have  been 
much  larger  than  a  schoolboy's  slate,  though  the  imagination  of 
the  critic  has  magnified  them  into  slabs  as  large  as  tombstones. 
5.  What  Reuss  says  about  the  first  journey  of  Jacob's  sons 
to  Egypt  to  buy  food  is  a  fine  specimen  of  fanciful  criticism. 
He  w^ill  have  it  that,  according  to  the  account  as  found  in  Gen- 
esis, they  went  into  Egypt  each  having  but  one  sack,  and  that 
they  returned  to  Canaan  each  one  having  only  one  sack  of  grain. 
He  is  also  quite  sure  that,  according  to  the  account,  but  one  of 
the  asses  was  fed  during  the  entire  journey.  ^  The  way  such 
conclusions  are  reached  is  this :  The  writer  mentions  but  one 
sack,  therefore  he  meant  there  were  no  others ;  he  refers  to  the 
feeding  of  but  one  of  the  asses,  therefore  he  meant  that  all  the 
rest  went  altogether  without  food.  Such  criticism  is  not  sur- 
passed by  anything  found  in  the  biblical  commentaries  of  Voltaire. 
Our  famous  critic  of  Strasburg  might  have  drawn  some  other 

'  Ex.  32  :  15.  ^  L'Histoire  Sainte,  Vol.  I.,  p.  108. 


IMAGININGS  99 

conclusions  equally  candid  and  reasonable.  He  might  have 
affirmed  that  each  man,  according  to  the  account,  carried  his  one 
sack  on  his  shoulder,  and  took  his  ass  along  only  for  company  ; 
for  Joseph's  order  was,  "Fill  the  men's  sacks  with  food,  as  much 
as  they  can  carr}-."  ^  He  might  have  claimed  that  the  men, 
during  the  first  journe}^  to  and  from  Egj^pt,  ate  no  food  at  all ; 
for,  though  mention  is  made  of  one  of  the  asses  being  fed,  there 
is  no  allusion  to  any  of  the  men  either  eating  or  drinking.  He 
m.ight  have  claimed  that  Benjamin,  at  the  second  visit,  in  Joseph's 
house  ate  five  dinners  at  one  meal ;  for  it  is  expressly  stated  that 
his  mess  was  five  times  as  much  as  that  of  an}^  of  his  brethren, 
and  it  is  not  stated  that  he  did  not  eat  it  all.  It  is  wonderful 
what  some  of  the  learned  critics  can  do  by  means  of  the  argu- 
ment e  silentio. 

6.  Graf,  too,  has  taken  a  hand  in  this  imaginative  criticism. 
The  following  is  a  specimen  :  '*  Nach  der  Num.,  C.  2,  3,  gegebenen 
Beschreibung  soil  die  Stiftshiitte  in  dei  Mitte  des  Lagers  stehen 
(vgl.  Ex.  25:  8;  Ezra  37:26,  28),  und  die  Eeviten  zunachst, 
dann  die  zwolf  Stamme  rings  um  dieselbe  symmetrisch  je  drei 
nach  der  einen  der  vier  Himmelsgegenden  sich  lagern,  und  nach 
ahnlicher  Anordnung  soil  auf  dem  Marsche  das  Heiligthum  in 
der  Mitte  des  Zuges  gehen.  Num.  10 :  11  ff;  nach  den  anderu 
Erzahlern  dagegen  steht  die  Stiftshiitte  ausserhalb  des  Lagers 
und  die  Bundeslade  zieht  dem  Volke  voran.  Jahwe  spricht  mit 
IMose  vom  Deckel  der  im  Allerheiligsten  stehenden  Bundeslade 
her  Ex.  25  :  22 ;  30 :  6 ;  36 ;  Num.  7 :  89.  .  .  .  Nach  den  andem 
Erzahlern  tritt  Jahwe  in  der  Wolkensaule  an  den  Eingang  des 
Zeltes,  um  mit  INIose  zu  reden. "  ^  ("  According  to  the  description 
given,  Num.  chs.  2,  3,  the  tabernacle  is  to  stand  in  the  middle  of 
the  camp  (comp.  Ex.  25:  8;  Ezra  ZT.  26,  28),  and  the  Levites 
next ;  then  the  twelve  tribes  to  encamp  round  about  it,  in  sym- 
metrical order,  always  three  toward  one  of  the  four  regions  of 
heaven ;  and,  according  to  a  like  regulation,  the  sanctuary  on  the 
march  is  to  go  in  the  middle  of  the  train,  Num.  10:  11  flf.  Ac- 
cording to  the  other  narrators,  however,  the  tabernacle  stands 
outside  of  the  camp,  and  the  ark  of  the  covenant  goes  before  the 
people.  Yah  we  speaks  with  Moses  from  the  cover  of  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  standing  in  the  most  holy,  Ex.  25  :  22 ;  30 :  6 ;  36  ; 
Num.  7 :  89.  .  .  .  According  to  the  other  narrators  Yahwe 
entered  into  the  cloud-pillar  to  speak  with  Moses.") 

1  Gen.  44  :  1.  «  OeschichlUchen  Bucher  des  Alien  Testaments,  pp.  64,  65. 


lOO  MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE)  PENTATEUCH 

•  These  claims  of  contradiction  are  put  forward  as  proofs  that 
the  account  of  the  tabernacle  and  the  ark  are  not  historical,  but 
poetic  and  imaginative.  The  critic,  however,  himself  in  this 
case  deals  wholly  in  the  imaginary  and  unreal.  It  is  not 
recorded  anywhere  that  the  Lord  spake  to  Moses  through  the 
cloudy  pillar,  and  even  if  there  had  been  such  a  record  it 
would  not  be  inconsistent  w^ith  the  declaration  and  the  fact 
that  God  communed  with  Moses  "from  between  the  two  cheru- 
bim which  are  upon  the  ark  of  the  testimony."  The  Almighty 
could  communicate  his  will  to  Moses  in  more  ways  and  places 
than  one. 

As  for  the  representation  of  the  tabernacle  as  being  both 
within  and  without  the  camp,  we  remark :  ( i )  That  the  taber- 
nacle, or  a  tabernacle,  is  spoken  of  as  being  pitched  without  the 
camp  at  the  time  of  the  shameful  affair  of  the  golden  calf.  ^  But 
this  was  clearly  only  a  temporary  arrangement,  introduced  on  the 
occasion  of  Israel's  great  sin.  (2)  This  tent  was  not  the  Mosaic 
tabernacle,  for  that  had  not  yet  been  erected.  ( 3 )  But  even  if 
this  tent  pitched  by  Moses  without  the  camp  had  been  the  true 
Mosaic  tabernacle,  its  outside  position  is  never  again  mentioned 
after  Israel's  idolatry  had  been  fully  put  away. 

There  is,  therefore,  nothing  in  this  particular  passage  incon- 
sistent with  the  uniform  representation  of  the  Mosaic  tabernacle 
and  ark  in  the  Pentateuch  as  having  their  rightful  and  actual 
place  within  the  camp  of  the  Israelites. 

7.  Colenso,  like  some  other  critics,  maintains  that  the  sacred 
narrative  represents  the  six  hundred  thousand  footmen  of  the 
Israelites  as  being  armed  previously  to  their  departure  from 
Kgypt.  On  this  assumption  several  imaginary  difficulties  are 
suggested.  Among  other  things  it  is  asked  why  the  Israelites, 
with  arms  in  their  hands,  did  not  fight  for  their  liberty  and  their 
children  in  Egypt.  It  is,  however,  a  question  whether  the 
Israelites  were  really  armed  before  they  crossed  the  Red  Sea. 
Our  Authorized  Version  reads  that  *  *  the  children  of  Israel  went 
up  harnessed  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  "^  But  for  the  word 
*  *  harnessed ' '  the  words  * '  by  five  in  a  rank ' '  are  placed  in  the 
margin.  But  the  Revised  Version  has  the  word  "armed,"  and 
Colenso  is  very  sure  that  this  is  the  correct  rendering.  ^  This 
view,  however,  is  not  sustained  by  the  best  scholarship.  Gesen- 
ius  gives  a  different  rendering.     Reuss  has  it  * '  marchant  en  bon 

1  Ex.  33 :  7.  «  Ex.  13 :  18.  ^  FentcUeiich  and  Book  of  Joshua,  p.  98. 


IMAGININGS  lOI 

ordre"  i  ("marching  in  good  order").  Professor  W.  H.  Green 
recognizes  the  fact  that  the  original  word  is  one  ' '  whose  mean- 
ing and  derivation  are  exceedingly  doubtful.  "^ 

We  do  not  care  to  discuss  this  point  farther.  When  Reuss, 
the  stepfather  of  analytic  criticism,  decides  against  translating 
the  original  word  by  "armed,"  the  dogmatism  of  Colenso  is 
unavailing. 

But  it  is  asked,  Where,  then,  did  the  Israelites  obtain  the 
weapons  with  which  they  defeated  the  Amalekites  about  a  month 
after  crossing  the  Red  Sea?8  We  answer  that  the  Israelites, 
after  coming  out  of  Egypt,  may  have  obtained  supplies  of  arms 
from  several  sources  :  ( i)  From  the  drowned  Egyptians.  The 
statement  that  "Israel  saw  the  Egyptians  dead  upon  the  sea- 
shore"* is  very  suggestive.  Josephus  may  be  correct  in  his 
statement  that  the  day  after  the  crossing  "the  Israelites  collected 
the^weapons  of  the  Egyptians."  ^  This  may  be  only  an  infer- 
ence of  the  Jewish  author,  but  if  so  it  is  a  very  natural  and 
proper  one.  ( 2  )  The  Israelites  may  have  manufactured  weapons. 
In  one  month  six  hundred  thousand  men  might  manufacture  all 
the  weapons  needed  by  those  who  went  to  meet  the  Amalekites ; 
for  those  chosen  to  go  on  that  expedition  were  perhaps  no  more 
than  twelve  thousand  men, — one  thousand  from  each  tribe, — 
and  hence  arms  would  be  needed  only  for  that  number.  (3) 
After  the  defeat  of  the  Amalekites  there  was  of  course  an  easy 
supply  of  weapons.  In  one,  or  in  all,  of  these  ways  there  was  a 
possibility  of  the  Israelites'  obtaining  arms. 

8.  Even  Wellhausen  furnishes  some  pretty  good  specimens  of 
imaginative  criticism.  In  denying  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  deca- 
logue, he  says  that  the  trustworthiness  of  the  account  in  Exodus 
of  its  being  written  on  tw^o  tables  of  stone  and  placed  in  the  ark 
is  impaired  by  the  fact  that  it  is  recorded  that  Deuteronomy  was 
written  on  twelve  stones  and  deposited  in  the  ark.  The  critic 
thinks  that  because  this  second  account  cannot  be  true  therefore 
the  first  is  also  probably  untrue.  His  words  are,  "Indessen  auch 
vom  Deuteronomium  wird  bezeugt,  einerseits  es  sei  auf  zwolf 
Steinen  eingeschrieben,  andererseits  es  sei  in  die  Lade  gelegt 
worden,  Deut.  31 :  26"^  ("Yet  also  concerning  Deuteronomy  this 
testimony  is  given,  that,  on  the  one  hand,  it  was  written  on 
twelve  stones,  and,  on  the  other,  deposited  in  the  ark,  Deut. 

» L'HisUnre  Sainte,  Vol.  II.,  p.  38.  ^  Pentateuch  Vindicated,  p.  74. 

»  Ex.  17:  8-13.       *  Ex.  14:  30.        ''AntiquUieSf2: 16:6.       ^  I*rolegomena,  p.  410. 


I02  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OP   THE    PENTATEUCH 

31:  26").  In  the  passage  thus  cited  there  is  not  a  word  about 
Deuteronomy  being  written  on  twelve  or  any  other  number  of 
stones.  The  declaration  there  is,  that  it  was  "the  book  of  the 
law" — not  a  copy  in  stone,  but  a  book  copy  of  the  law — that  was 
placed  in  the  ark.  Nor  is  it  stated  anywhere  in  the  Pentateuch 
that  a  stone  copy  of  Deuteronomy  was  placed  in  the  ark. 

Again,  Wellhausen  affirms  that  we  have  two  decalogues,  quite 
different  from  one  another,  preserved  to  us  in  Exodus.  His 
words  are,  "Indemzwei  ganz  verschiedene  Dekaloge,  Bxod.  20 
und  Kxod.  34  iiberliefert  werden "  ^  ( "  Two  entirely  different 
decalogues  are  given,  Exodus  20  and  Exodus  34).  There  are, 
indeed,  two  sets  of  tables  mentioned  in  connection  with  these 
two  chapters.  But  they  are  declared  to  be  identical  in  their  con- 
tents. "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Hew  thee  two  tables  of 
stone  like  unto  the  first ;  and  I  will  write  upon  these  tables  the 
words  that  were  in  the  first  tables,  which  thou  brakest."  ^  The 
identity  of  the  contents  of  the  first  two  and  second  two  tables  is 
also  emphatically  affirmed  in  Deuteronomy.^ 

Thus  Wellhausen,  as  well  as  other  analytic  critics,  is  some- 
times indebted  to  his  imagination  for  facts  to  support  his 
theories.  We  do  not,  of  course,  say  that  all  their  reasoning,  or 
their  reasoning  in  general,  is  such  as  we  have  been  dealing  with 
in  this  chapter.  There  are  some  difficulties  involved  in  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  these  the  analytic 
critics  employ  with  much  skill.  Many  of  their  arguments  are 
characterized  by  more  or  less  plausibility  and  strength ;  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  much  of  their  argumentation  is  founded  on  fancy 
and  misrepresentation.  We  have  thought  proper  to  take  some 
notice  of  arguments  of  this  kind,  as  well  as  of  those  that  are 
stronger  and  more  respectable. 

»  Fi-olegomena,  p.  411.  2  Ex.  34  : 1.  »  Deut.  10  :  2,  4. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

PLURALITY   OF   AUTHORS 

The  documentary  hypothesis  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  Moses  may  have  em- 
ployed several  documents  in  its  composition.  In  this  there  is 
nothing  inherently  incredible  or  improbable.  Astruc,  who  is 
regarded  by  many  as  the  originator  of  the  documentary  hypoth- 
esis (but  was  not),  was  at  least  a  professed  advocate  of  the 
traditional  belief.  As  Kuenen  remarks,  the  very  title  of  his 
work  shows  how  little  he  questioned  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
Genesis.  ^  More  than  half  a  century  before  Astruc,  Vitringa,  an 
orthodox  Protestant,  propounded  the  documentary  hypothesis, 
as  follows:  There  were  "documents  of  the  fathers  preserved 
among  the  Israelites,  which  Moses  collected,  digested,  embel- 
lished, and  supplemented. ' '  2  Abraham  may  have  brought  family 
records  and  other  written  memorials  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees. 
Moses  may  have  had  access,  in  Egypt,  to  documents  much  older 
than  Abraham,  and  may  have  taken  copies  of  them,  or  retained 
a  knowledge  of  them.  Jethro,  his  father-in-law,  who  was  both 
priest  and  statesman,  may  have  had  in  his  possession  records 
that  came  down  from  former  generations.  Moses  ma}^  have 
employed  some  of  his  own  contemporaries  to  write  for  him  and 
to  furnish  him  with  narratives  and  statements.  These  various 
documents,  consisting  of  registers,  narratives,  and  statements, 
Moses  may  have  put  together,  condensing,  curtailing,  and  filling 
out,  and  thus  making  the  whole  his  own.  If  there  were  any 
literary  monuments  of  the  past  in  Moses'  time,  we  think  there 
were  none  more  likely  than  he  to  be  acquainted  with  them,  and 
to  utilize  them  in  his  own  writings. 

Nor  is  this  hypothesis  inconsistent  with  the  most  thorough- 
going doctrine  of  supernatural  inspiration.  Luke,  the  writer  of 
the  third   Gospel,   intimates  in  the  outset  that  much  of  the 

^ Hexateueh,  p.  58  :    "Conjectures  sur  les  Memoirs  originaux  dout  il  paroit 
que  Moise  s'est  servi  pour  composer  le  livre  de  la  Gen^se." 
*  Observationes  Sacrce,  Vol.  I.,  p.  36. 

103 


I04  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PEJNTATEIUCH 

knowledge  of  the  events  he  is  about  to  relate  had  been  derived 
from  natural  sources.  ^  This  is  undoubtedly  true  of  Moses  and 
of  every  other  divinely  guided  and  inspired  writer.  The  knowl- 
edge which  Moses  acquired  b}^  his  residence  in  Egypt  and  at  the 
court  of  Pharaoh  was  undoubtedly  utilized  in  writing  Genesis 
and  Exodus.  It  is  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  God  gave 
him  knowledge  by  putting  family  records  and  other  memorials 
of  the  past  into  his  possession  than  that  he  communicated  with 
him  in  every  case  by  direct,  supernatural  revelation.  The 
hypothesis  of  Cave  that  J  of  the  critics  is  Moses,  is  not  to  be 
rejected  on  account  of  any  antecedent  improbability,  but,  if  at 
all,  on  account  of  the  want  of  positive  evidence  in  its  support. 

The  documentary  hypothesis,  then,  or  rather  a  documentary 
hypothesis,  is  not  incompatible  with  Mosaic  authorship.  Though 
it  should  be  shown  that  the  Pentateuch  embraces  several  docu- 
ments, consisting  of  extracts,  sketches,  statements,  family  rec- 
ords, taken  from  various  sources,  yet  may  Moses  have  been  the 
one  who,  by  his  own  hand,  or  by  amanuenses,  collected,  ar- 
ranged, curtailed,  condensed,  supplemented,  corrected,  and  also 
added  much  of  his  own,  and  thus  constituted  himself  the 
real  author,  and  secured  that  remarkable  unity  which  even 
analysts  are  forced  to  admit  is  a  striking  feature  of  the  Penta- 
teuch as  a  whole. 

If,  then,  the  hj^pothesis  of  a  plurality  of  writers  were  proved, 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  would  not  thereby  be 
disproved. 

But  has  the  hypothesis  of  plural  authorship  been  established? 
or  can  it  be  established .?    Let  us  examine. 

I.  One  of  the  arguments  employed  in  its  favor,  based  on 
claimed  inconsistencies,  has  already  been  considered.  We  have 
but  little  to  add  to  what  has  already  been  said  in  Chapter  V.  on 
this  subject. 

(i)  We  have  shown  that,  in  many  cases,  the  claimed  incon- 
sistencies and  contradictions  are  the  results  of  misinterpretation, 
or  exist  only  in  the  imagination  of  the  objectors. 

( 2 )  As  has  often  been  remarked  concerning  claimed  discrep- 
ancies in  the  Bible  in  general,  it  may  truly  be  said  of  those  that 
are  claimed  in  the  Pentateuch  that  they  involve  most  generally 
names  and  numbers,  in  which  copyists  are  most  likely  to  make 
mistakes. 

1  Luke  1 :  1-3. 


PIvURALITY   OP  AUTHORS  IO5 

(3)  The  analysts,  in  much  of  their  ar^mentation  on  this 
point,  proceed  on  the  theory  that  Moses  was  plenarily  inspired 
as  a  writer,  or  was  in  some  way  rendered  infallible.  They  argue 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  not  written  by  him  because  it  contains 
inconsistencies  and  other  errors. 

(4)  Some  of  the  analytic  critics  are  on  this  point  discreditably 
illogical.  We  refer  to  those  of  them  who  admit  the  Bible,  in- 
cluding the  Pentateuch  with  all  its  claimed  errors,  to  be  in  some 
sense  the  word  of  God,  or  that  at  least  it  contains  the  word  of 
God,  but,  because  of  these  claimed  errors  in  the  Pentateuch, 
deny  that  Moses  is,  in  any  sense,  its  author.  If,  notwith- 
standing these  supposed  errors,  it  contains  God's  word,  may  it 
not  contain  the  word  of  Moses  as  well  ?  Is  God  less  free  from 
error  than  ]\Ioses  ? 

( 5  )  This  argument  from  claimed  errors  proves  in  many  cases 
too  much.  If  the  Pentateuch  contains  such  contradictions  and 
incredibilities  as  are  claimed,  the  conclusion  must  be  that  neither 
Moses  nor  any  man  of  common  sense  wrote,  compiled,  or  redacted 
it.  Their  hypothesis  amounts  to  this,  that  a  crowd  of  writers 
worked  on  the  Pentateuch,  combining  documents,  supplement- 
ing, curtailing,  and  amending,  doing  the  work  of  compilers, 
editors,  and  redactors,  but  that  not  one  of  them  had  sense  enough 
to  remove  palpable  contradictions  and  absurdities.  Yet  these 
same  writers,  so  destitute  of  common  sense,  have  at  last  succeeded 
in  working  up  these  five  books  into  such  a  unity  of  thought  and 
such  literary  excellence  that  they  have  been  the  admiration  of 
the  civilized  world  for  hundreds  of  years. 

2.  Another  argument  in  favor  of  the  hypothesis  of  a  plurality 
of  authors  is  that  in  many  places  two  narratives  are  combined  in 
one.  It  is  claimed  that  the  two  narratives  in  many  case's  can  be 
separated,  and  that  each  narrative,  taken  by  itself,  constitutes  a 
complete  and  consistent  whole.  We  will  test  this  claim  by  the 
presentation  of  some  of  the  so-called  distinct  stories. 

Separating  the  account  of  the  flood  into  what  are  called  the  *  ''P ' ' 
and  '*  J  "  stories,  we  have  for  the  **J"  story  the  following  :  "And 
Yahweh  said  unto  Noah,  Come  thou  and  all  thy  house  into  the 
ark :  for  thee  have  I  seen  righteous  before  me  in  this  generation. 
Of  every  clean  beast  thou  shalt  take  to  thee  seven  and  seven, 
the  male  and  his  female :  and  of  the  beasts  that  are  not  clean 
two,  the  male  and  his  female ;  of  the  fowl  also  of  the  air  seven 
and  seven  ;  to  keep  seed  alive  upon  the  face  of  all  the  earth. 


Io6  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OP   THE    PENTATEUCH 

For  yet  seven  days,  and  I  will  cause  it  to  rain  upon  the  earth 
forty  da3'S  and  forty  nights  ;  and  ever^^  living  thing  that  I  have 
made  will  I  destroy  from  off  the  face  of  the  ground.  And  Noah 
did  according  unto  all  that  Yahweh  commanded  him.  .  .  .  And 
Noah  went  in,  and  his  sons,  and  his  wife,  and  his  sons'  wives 
with  him,  into  the  ark,  because  of  the  waters  of  the  flood.  Of 
clean  beasts,  and  of  beasts  that  are  not  clean,  and  of  fowls,  .  .  . 
there  went  in  unto  Noah  into  the  ark,  as  God  commanded  Noah. 
And  it  came  to  pass,  after  the  seven  days,  that  the  waters  were 
upon  the  earth.  .  .  .  And  the  rain  was  upon  the  earth  forty 
days  and  forty  nights.  .  .  .  And  Yahweh  shut  him  in.  .  .  .  And 
the  waters  increased,  and  bare  up  the  ark,  and  it  was  lifted  up 
above  the  earth.  .  .  .  All  in  whose  nostrils  was  the  breath  of  life, 
of  all  that  was  in  the  dry  land,  died.  And  everj^  living  substance 
was  destroyed  which  was  upon  the  face  of  the  ground :  .  .  .  and 
Noah  only  was  left,  and  they  that  were  with  him  in  the  ark.  .  .  . 
And  the  rain  from  heaven  was  restrained;  and  the  waters 
returned  from  the  earth  continually  ;  .  .  .  and  it  came  to  pass  at 
the  end  of  forty  days  that  Noah  opened  the  window  of  the  ark, 
which  he  had  made ;  and  sent  forth  a  raven,  and  it  went  forth 
to  and  fro,  until  the  waters  were  dried  up  from  off  the  earth. "^ 
Such  is  the  account  of  the  flood  as  attributed  by  the  critics  to  J. 
We  can  scarcely  realize  how  abrupt,  broken,  and  incoherent  this 
account  is,  because,  as  we  read  it,  we  supply  ideas  which  have 
been  made  familiar  to  us  by  reading  the  full  account.  In  this 
fragmentary  account  there  is  no  information  as  to  what  the  ark 
was,  and  no  information  as  to  who  made  it,  or  whether  it  was 
made  at  all,  until  near  the  close,  where  it  is  incidentally  stated 
that  Noah  made  it.  The  account  begins  with  the  statement  that 
Noah  found  favor  with  God,  and  then  comes  the  command,  ' '  Come 
into  the  ark,"  there  being  no  allusion  to  the  ark  before.  Also 
the  sentence,  "And  Yahweh  shut  him  in,"  stands  dislocated  and 
alone.  So,  too,  the  sentence,  ' '  And  it  came  to  pass  after  forty 
days,"  has  no  meaning;  but  as  it  stands  in  Genesis  it  means 
forty  daj^s  after  the  tops  of  the  mountains  had  been  seen.  This 
is  the  way  the  analysts  cut  up  and  mangle  the  Scriptures,  while 
claimingtoseparate  them  into  their  independent  and  distinctparts. 
The  so-called  "J"  story  of  the  selling  of  Joseph  is  as  follows : 
"And  Israel  said  unto  Joseph,  Do  not  thy  brethren  feed  the 
flock  in  Shechem  ?  come,  and  I  will  send  thee  unto  them.  ...  So 

» Gen.  7: 1-8:  7. 


PI^URALITY  OF  AUTHORS  IO7 

he  sent  him  out  of  the  vale  of  Hebron,  and  he  came  to  Shechem. 
.  .  .  And  before  he  came  near  unto  them,  they  conspired  against 
him  to  sla}^  him.  .  .  .  And  Reuben  heard  it,  and  delivered  him  out 
of  their  hand ;  and  said,  lyCt  us  not  take  his  life.  .  .  .  And  it  came 
to  pass,  when  Joseph  was  come  unto  his  brethren,  .  .  .  the  coat 
of  many  colors  that  was  on  him.  .  .  .  And  they  lifted  up  their 
eyes  and  looked,  and,  behold,  a  traveling  company  of  Ishmaelites 
came  from  Gilead,  with  their  camels  bearing  spicery  and  balm 
and  myrrh,  going  to  carry  it  down  to  Egypt.  And  Judah  said 
unto  his  brethren,  What  profit  is  it  if  we  slay  our  brother,  and 
conceal  his  blood  ?  Come,  and  let  us  sell  him  to  the  Ishmaelites, 
and  let  not  our  hand  be  upon  him  ;  for  he  is  our  brother  and  our 
flesh.  And  his  brethren  were  content.  .  .  .  And  sold  Joseph  to  the 
Ishmaelites  for  twenty  pieces  of  silver  :  .  .  .  And  they  sent  the  coat 
of  many  colors.  .  .  .  Joseph  is  without  doubt  torn  in  pieces.  .  .  . 
And  all  his  sons  and  all  his  daughters  rose  up  to  comfort  him  ; 
but  he  refused  to  be  comforted  :  and  he  said,  For  I  will  go  down 
to  the  grave  to  my  son  mourning.    And  his  father  wept  for  him. ' '  ^ 

Here,  again,  the  narrative  called  "J,"  when  taken  by  itself,  is 
broken  and  disconnected.  Some  of  the  sentences  are  cut  in  two, 
mangled  in  meaning  as  well  as  in  form. 

We  give,  as  follows,  the  so-called  "J"  account  of  the  first 
journey  to  Egypt  to  buy  corn  :  "And  the  famine  was  over  all  the 
face  of  the  earth.  And  Joseph  opened  all  the  storehouses,  and  sold 
unto  the  Egyptians ;  and  the  famine  was  sore  in  the  land  of 
Eg3"pt.  .  .  .  And  he  said,  .  .  .  Get  you  down  thither.  .  .  .  For  he 
said,  lycst  peradventure  mischief  befall  him.  And  the  sons  of 
Israel  came  to  buy  among  those  that  came :  for  the  famine  was  in 
the  land  of  Canaan.  .  .  .  He  it  was  that  sold  to  all  the  people  of 
the  land.  .  .  .  And  Joseph  saw  his  brethren,  and  he  knew  them, 
but  made  himself  strange  unto  them  ;  .  .  .  and  he  said  unto  them. 
Whence  come  ye?  And  they  said,  From  the  land  of  Canaan  to 
buy  food.  .  .  .  And  as  one  of  them  opened  his  sack,  to  give  his 
ass  provender  in  the  lodging-place,  he  espied  his  money  ;  and, 
behold,  it  was  in  the  mouth  of  his  sack.  And  he  said  unto  his 
brethren.  My  money  is  restored  ;  and,  lo,  it  is  even  in  m}-  sack  : 
and  their  heart  failed  them.  .  .  .  And  he  said,  My  son  shall  not 
go  down  with  you ;  for  his  brother  is  dead,  and  he  only  is  left : 
if  mischief  befall  him  by  the  way  in  the  which  ye  go,  then  shall 
ye  bring  down  my  gray  hairs  with  sorrow  to  the  grave."  2 

1  Gen.  37 :  13-3.5.  2  Gen.  41 :  56-42 :  38. 


I08  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE;    PENTATEUCH 

The  so-}Called  "  B  "  account  is  as  follows :  * '  Now  Jacob  saw  that 
there  was  corn  in  Egypt,  and  Jacob  said  unto  his  sons,  Why  do 
ye  look  one  upon  another  ?  .  .  .  Behold,  I  have  heard  that  there  is 
corn  in  Egypt :  .  .  .  and  buy  for  us  from  thence  ;  that  we  may 
live,  and  not  die.  And  Joseph's  ten  brethren  went  down  to  buy 
corn  from  Egypt.  But  Benjamin,  Joseph's  brother,  Jacob  sent 
not  with  them.  .  .  .  And  Joseph  was  governor  over  the  land,  .  .  . 
and  Joseph's  brethren  came,  and  bowed  down  themselves  to  him 
with  their  faces  to  the  earth.  .  .  .  And  spake  roughly  with  them. 
.  .  .  And  Joseph  knew  his  brethren,  but  they  knew  not  him."  i.  s 

Comment  is  unnecessary.  The  Pentateuchal  narratives  cannot 
be  decomposed  without  violence  and  distortion.  Neither  the  so- 
called  "J"  nor  "E"  document  taken  by  itself  constitutes  a  nar- 
rative characterized  either  by  continuity  or  sense.  The  attempt 
to  separate  the  historical  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  into  distinct 
and  coherent  stories  is  a  failure.  All  that  has  been  done  in 
decomposing  the  Pentateuchal  narratives  might  be  done  with 
Macaulay's  History  of  England  and  Bancroft's  History  of  the 
United  States. 

3.  Another  argument  in  favor  of  the  hypothesis  of  a  plurality 
of  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  is  drawn  from  the  differ- 
ences in  style.  It  is  claimed  that  a  plurality  of  authors  is  neces- 
sary to  account  for  these  dififerences.  The  analytics  hold  that  if 
Moses  wrote  the  five  books  of  the  Pentateuch  they  would  all  be 
written  throughout  in  one  style.  The  weakness  and  inconclu- 
siveness  of  this  argument  are  shown  by  several  considerations. 

( I )  The  assumption  on  which  this  argument  is  based  is  incor- 
rect. It  is  not  true  that  authors  do  not  vary  in  style.  Many 
authors  have  written  in  different  styles  at  different  periods  of 
their  lives,  and  many  authors  have  written  in  different  styles  at 
the  same  period  of  life.  Most  authors  become  less  ornate  and 
florid  as  they  advance  in  age.  At  least,  there  are  many  ex- 
amples of  this.  But  there  are  examples  of  change  in  the  other 
direction.  Of  these  Bacon  is  one.  His  mind,  to  use  Macaulay's 
illustration,  reversed  the  order  of  nature,  producing  fruit  first 
(which  remained  to  the  last),  and  blossoms  much  later.  The 
writings  of  his  later  years  are  much  superior  to  those  of  his 
youth  in  variety  of  expression,  in  richness  of  illustration,  in 
sweetness  and  vigor,  in  everything  that  constitutes  eloquence.    A 

1  Gen.  42  :  1-8. 

*  These  quotations  are  taken  from  Die  Heilige  Schri/t  des  Atten  Testaments,  by 
Kautzsch  -Socin. 


PI.URALITY    OF    AUTHORS  IO9 

similar  change  took  place  in  the  style  of  Burke.  At  the  age  of 
twenty  it  was  simple  and  unadorned ;  at  forty  it  was  rich  and 
copious ;  at  fifty,  ornate  and  florid,  ..and  at  seventy,  gorgeous. 
Macaulay  declares  it  strange  that  the  essay  on  the  ' '  Sublime  and 
Beautiful ' '  and  the  ' '  Letter  to  a  Noble  I^ord ' '  ( the  former,  one  of 
Burke's  early,  and  the  latter  one  of  his  late,  productions)  should 
have  been  written  by  the  same  man.  ^  But  they  were  ;  and  this, 
with  other  similar  facts,  shows  the  unreasonableness  of  the  con- 
clusions drawn  by  the  critics  from  the  differences  of  style  in  the 
Pentateuch. 

Not  only  do  authors  write  in  different  styles  at  different  periods 
of  their  lives,  but  many  of  them  write  in  different  styles  at  the 
same  period.  Every  poet  has  his  prose  as  well  as  his  poetic 
style.  There  is  a  greater  difference  between  the  prose  writings 
and  the  poetry  of  most  modern  authors,  so  far  as  style  is  con- 
cerned, than  between  different  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.  Accord- 
ing to  the  argumentation  of  the  critics,  the  prose  works  of 
Milton  and  the  "Paradise  lyost"  must  have  been  written  by 
different  authors.  According  to  their  way  of  reasoning,  Scott's 
' '  Life  of  Napoleon ' '  and  the  * '  Lady  of  the  Lake ' '  cannot  be  the 
productions  of  one  man.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Cowper's 
poems  and  epistles,  and  the  prose  and  poetic  writings  of  many 
other  authors. 

Authors  vary  much  also  in  poetic  style.  Judging  by  style  alone, 
we  would  conclude  that  the  "  Pucelle,"  the  "  Henriade,"  and  the 
dramas  of  Voltaire,  to  say  nothing  about  his  "Charles  XII." 
of  Sweden  and  other  prose  works,  must  have  been  produced  by 
three  different  authors.  According  to  the  way  the  analytics 
reason,  Byron's  "English  Bards  and  Scotch  Reviewers,"  his 
"Childe  Harold,"  and  his  "Don  Juan"  owe  their  origin  to  a 
triple  authorship.  Each  of  these  productions  has  marked  pecu- 
liarities of  style.  An  argument  founded  on  archaisms  may  be 
employed  to  prove  that  "  Childe  Harold"  was  written  long 
before  Byron's  time,  for  it  abounds  in  obsoletisms,  such  as  mote, 
whilome,  idlesse,  eld,  fytte,  fere,  and  other  words,  which  are  not 
found  even  in  Byron's  other  poems.  If  we  follow  the  linguistic 
argument,  we  must  conclude  that  the  author  of  this  poem 
lived  centuries  before  the  time  of  Lord  B3'ron.  Coleridge,  too, 
sometimes  wrote  in  a  weird  and  antique  style.  Our  critics,  to 
be  consistent,  ought  to  maintain  that  the  author  of  "  Christabel " 

^  Macaulay's  Essay  on  Bacon. 


no  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

and  the  hj-mn  "Before  Sunrise  in  the  Vale  of  Chamouni "  could 
not  have  written  the  "Rime  of  the  Ancient  Mariner."  The 
views  of  our  critics  about  style  are  shown  to  be  absurdly  incor- 
rect by  the  example  of  the  writings  of  Burns.  He  was  master 
of  two  stj'les  of  language,  the  broad  Scotch  dialect  and  the  pure 
Anglo-Saxon  English.  We  have  the  pure  English  in  such 
poems  as  "To  Mary  in  Heaven"  and  "Man  was  Made  to 
Mourn";  and  the  broad  Scotch  in  the  "Twa  Dogs"  and  the 
"Twa  Brigs."  "Tam  O'Shanter"  is  written  mainly  in  the 
Scotch  dialect,  but  a  small  portion  is  characterized  by  the  purest 
and  most  elegant  English,  as  follows  : 

"But  pleasures  are  like  poppies  spread, 
You  seize  the  flow'r,  its  bloom  is  shed ; 
Or  like  the  snow-falls  in  the  river, 
A  moment  white— then  melts  forever; 
Or  like  the  borealis  race, 
That  flit  ere  you  can  point  their  place ; 
Or  like  the  rainbow's  lovely  form 
Evanishing  amid  the  storm." 

The  two  styles  appear  also  in  "  Bannockbum."  The  first  four 
stanzas  of  this  poem  are  in  Scotch,  and  the  last  two  in  pure 
English.  Besides,  there  are  two  distinct  styles  of  thought  in 
Burns' s  poems.  Some  of  them  contain  only  noble  and  pure 
ideas,  and  some  of  them  are  characterized  by  vulgarity  and 
obscenity.  The  author  of  "The  Cotter's  Saturday  Night"  was 
apparently  a  man  of  good  moral  ideas,  but  some  of  Burns's 
pieces  would  seem  to  have  been  written  by  a  drunkard  and  a 
debauchee.  Thus  we  have  in  Burns's  works  four  or  five  diverse 
styles  of  thought  and  diction — prose  style  and  poetic  style,  Scotch 
style  and  English  style,  and  a  pure  and  elevated  style  of  thought 
in  contrast  with  a  vulgar  and  obscene  style.  We  must  admit 
that  all  these  different  styles  were  practiced  by  one  man,  and 
sometimes  in  writing  one  poem,  or  else  maintain  that  there  were 
four  or  five  different  authors  of  the  productions  attributed  to 
Burns.  Yet  the  analytics  go  on  reasoning  about  the  Pentateuch 
just  as  if  no  author  ever  wrote  in  more  than  one  style,  and  just 
as  if  Moses,  who  lived  one  hundred  and  twenty  years,  and  whose 
literary  activity  may  have  continued  for  eighty  years  or  more, 
could  not  have  changed  his  style  of  thought  or  diction  during 
all  that  time. 

(2)  The  extreme  weakness  of  the  linguistic  argument  is 
shown  by  other  facts.     One  of  these  is  that  in  the  Pentateuch, 


PLURAI.ITY   OF  AUTHORS  ^  III 

as  well  as  in  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  poetry  and  prose 
are  mingled  together.  How  can  the  critics  be  sure  that  what 
they  regard  as  transitions  from  one  author  to  another,  as  from 
E  to  J  and  from  J  back  to  E,  are  not  in  some  cases  alternations 
of  poetry  and  prose,  or  adaptations  of  style  to  subject,  by  the 
same  author?  If  men  should  judge  of  the  alternations  of  style 
in  Goethe's  "Faust"  as  the  analysts  do  of  the  Pentateuch,  what 
would  be  the  result  ? 

(3)  Besides,  the  uncertainty  of  all  theories  founded  on  differ- 
ences of  style  in  the  Pentateuch  is  increased  by  the  fact  that  if 
the  hypothesis  of  the  critics  be  correct  there  is  very  little  to 
determine  what  the  style  of  Hebrew  writing  was  in  the  Mosaic 
age.  According  to  their  showing,  there  are  indeed  a  few  pieces 
of  composition  of  that  age  found  in  the  Pentateuch.  Is  there 
any  difference  between  these  few  pieces  and  the  Pentateuch  in 
general,  as  to  style  of  language  and  thought  ?  This  is  a  point 
which  the  critics  ignore,  and  thereby  tacitly  admit  that  the  facts 
are  against  them.  But  aside  from  this,  with  what  is  the  style  of 
the  Pentateuch  to  be  compared?  The  critics  can  only  reason 
thus  :  The  style  of  it  is  a  good  deal  like  that  of  Jeremiah  or  Joel, 
and  therefore  it  is  not  like  the  style  of  Moses.  Yet  they  fail  to 
consider  the  style  of  what  they  admit  Moses  actually  wrote.  ' 

(4)  The  weakness  and  uncertainty  of  all  this  reasoning  are 
admitted  by  the  ablest  of  the  analytics  themselves.  Kuenen 
says,  "The  extant  Israelitish  literature  is  too  limited  in  extent 
to  enable  us  to  determine  the  age  of  any  work  with  certainty 
from  mere  considerations  of  language  and  style."  ^  Even 
Cheyne  quotes  approvingly  from  Kuenen,  as  follows:  "Lin- 
guistic arguments  do  not  furnish  a  positive  or  conclusive 
argument."  ^  Wellhausen  expresses  his  contempt  for  linguistic 
arguments,  as  well  as  for  some  others,  by  saying  that  "the 
firemen  kept  at  a  distance  from  the  spot  where  the  conflagration 
raged."  He  takes  the  ground  that  the  battle  must  be  fought 
out  "in  the  regions  of  religious  antiquities  and  dominant  reli- 
gious ideas."  ^ 

(5)  The  weakness  of  the  linguistic  argument  is  further  shown 
by  the  efforts  that  have  been  made  to  point  out  peculiarities  of 
style  in  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  Take,  for  example. 
Driver's  list  of  phrases  which  he  claims  are  characteristic  of 

^Hexatevxih,  p.  268.  ^  Founders  of  the  Old  Testament  Criticism,  p.  281. 

*  Prolegomena,  p.  12. 


112  MpSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

Deuteronomy.  1  The  number  of  such  phrases  as  presented  by 
him  is  forty-one.  But  the  number  of  obsoletisms,  called  by 
philologists  archaisms,  in  "Childe  Harold"  is  found  by  actual 
count  to  be  fifty-five.^  Here,  then,  are  fourteen  more  linguistic 
facts  to  prove  that  Byron  did  not  write  that  poem  than  Driver 
produces  to  prove  that  Moses  did  not  write  Deuteronomy.  On 
examination,  however,  we  find  that  very  many  of  these  phrases 
said  to  be  characteristic  of  Deuteronomy  are  really  not  such. 
The  author  admits  that  the  first  ten  are  found  in  Exodus.  ^  This 
admission  does  not  go  far  enough,  for,  according  to  his  own 
showing,  nearlj'  all  of  these  ten  phrases  are  found  not  only  in 
Exodus,  but  elsewhere.  Number  one  is  found  in  Exodus,  and 
also  in  Joshua  and  Hosea.  Number  two  is  found  in  Exodus  and 
Joshua,  often  in  Kings  and  Jeremiah.  Number  three  is  found  in 
Exodus,  and  in  Isaiah,  Proverbs,  and  Ecclesiastes.  Number  five 
is  found  in  Exodus,  Judges,  Micah,  and  Jeremiah.  Number 
nine  is  found  in  Exodus  and  in  Genesis  and  Joshua.  Nearly  all 
of  the  first  ten  phrases  said  to  be  characteristic  of  Deuteronomy 
are  found  not  only  in  Exodus,  but  also  elsewhere.  The  same  is 
true  of  most  of  the  other  thirty-one  examples.  The  eleventh, 
said  to  be  very  characteristic  of  Deuteronomy,  is  admitted  also  to 
be  "characteristic  of  II.  Isaiah,"  and  is  found  also  in  I.  Kings 
and  in  Jeremiah.  The  fourteenth  is  found  in  Exodus,  Jeremiah, 
and  Ezekiel.  The  seventeenth  is  found  in  Genesis,  Isaiah,  and 
frequently  in  Ezekiel.  The  nineteenth  is  found  in  Joshua  and 
I.  Chronicles.  The  twenty-sixth  is  found  in  Numbers,  often  in 
the  Book  of  Judges,  in  Kings  and  Jeremiah  occasionally.  The 
thirty-fifth  is  found  in  Kings,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Jeremiah. 
The  fortieth  is  found  in  lycviticus.  Numbers,  and  Joshua.  Very 
few  of  these  forty-one  phrases  are  found  in  Deuteronomy  alone. 
The  most  of  them  are  found  in  other  books,  many  of  them  fre- 
quently. To  call  these  phrases  in  general  characteristic  of 
Deuteronomy  is  absurd.  But  Driver  has  a  way  of  construing 
things  to  his  own  mind  and  of  representing  them  to  others  that 
covers  up  the  absurdity.  He  claims  that  many  of  these  phrases 
were  incorporated  into  Deuteronomy  from  JE,  and  that  JE  was 
incorporated  afterward  into  the  Book  of  Exodus.  The  vicious- 
ness  of  this  procedure  from  a  logical  point  of  view  is  manifest ;  for 
the  thing  in  dispute  is  the  existence  of  these  supposed  authors, 

1  IntrodMction  to  the  IMerature  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  91-95. 
*  See  above,  p.  109.  '  Introduction,  p.  91. 


PLURALITY  OF  AUTHORS  II3 

J,  E,  D,  and  P.  And  now  comes  Driver,  and,  in  order  to  prove 
that  certain  phrases  are  characteristic  of  Deuteronomy,  brings  in 
the  existence  of  JE  as  an  established  fact.  The  fact  of  char- 
acteristic phrases  being  thus  proved  is  then  used  in  turn  to  prove 
the  existence  of  such  writers  as  J  and  E.  Another  absurd  pro- 
cedure in  this  undertaking  is  the  claiming  that  phrases  are  char- 
acteristic of  Deuteronomy  which  yet  are  found  in  several  other 
books — some  of  them  frequently  thus  found.  Since  these  phrases 
are  used  b3^  many  writers,  they  are  not  characteristic  of  any  one 
in  particular.  Driver's  list  and  argumentation  confirm  the  ad- 
missions of  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen  concerning  the  weakness 
and  inconclusiveness  of  the  linguistic  argument  as  employed 
against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

4.  The  argument  in  favor  of  the  documentary  hypothesis 
drawn  from  the  use  of  the  divine  names  in  Genesis,  though 
doubtless  the  strongest  adduced  by  the  analytic  critics,  is  by  no 
means  conclusive  or  satisfactory.  It  is  as  follows :  In  Genesis 
I  :  1-31  and  2  :  1-3  the  Divine  Being  is  designated  exclusively  by 
the  name  **God"  {Elohim)\  in  2:4-25  and  3:  1-24  the  name 
"Lord  God"  {Yahweh  Elohim)  is  generally  employed;  in 
4:1-26  "Lord"  {Yahweh)  is  generally  employed;  in  5:1-32 
"God"  is  generally  employed;  in  6:  1-8,  "Lord"  ;  in  6:9-22, 
"God."  Now  this  varied  use  of  the  divine  names  may  be 
accounted  for  by  the  hypothesis  that  in  Genesis  extracts  from 
several  documents  written  by  different  authors  have  been  pieced 
together,  and  that  one  of  these  authors  employed  the  name 
"God,"  another,  "Lord,"  and  perhaps  another,  "Lord  God." 
It  is  further  claimed  that  the  phenomenon  in  question  is  not 
satisfactorily  accounted  for  in  any  other  way.  It  is  hence  inferred 
that  the  hj^pothesis  that  Genesis  is  made  up  largely  of  extracts 
from  documents  written  b}-  different  authors  must  be  accepted ; 
and  a  further  inference  is  that  Genesis  is  not  the  production  of 
any  single  author,  and  hence  not  the  production  of  Moses. 

The  argument  certainl}-  has  plausibilitj^  and  force.  But  there 
are  several  considerations  by  which  it  is  very  much  weakened, 
if  not  altogether  destro3'ed. 

( i)  One  of  these  is  the  union  of  the  two  names  "Lord"  and 
"God,"  as  in  Genesis  2 :  4-25  and  3  :  1-24.  It  is,  indeed,  very  easy 
to  say  that  this  is  a  JE  document,  an  amalgamation  of  extracts 
from  a  Jehovistic  and  an  Elohistic  writer;  but  not  a  word  is 
claimed  from  an  Elohistic  document  except  the  name  "God" 


114  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PEJNTAT^UCH 

{Elohim).  After  all,  then,  the  critics  cannot  claim  this  passage 
as  a  JE  document,  but  are  compelled  to  take  the  ground  that 
it  is  purely  Jehovistic,  and  that  the  name  '*God"  {Elohim)  was 
interpolated  in  it  at  least  sixteen  times  by  some  unknown  per- 
son for  an  unknown  purpose.  For  the  fact  of  the  interpolation 
they  have,  and  claim,  no  other  evidence  than  that  there  is  no 
other  way  of  reconciling  this  passage  with  their  hypothesis. 

(2)  Another  weak  place  in  the  argument  is  suggested  by  the 
fact  that  frequently  the  name  "Lord"  {Yahweh)  is  found  in 
the  so-called  Elohistic  document  ^  and  the  name  * '  God ' '  ( Elo- 
him^  in  the  Jehovistic.^  Hence,  again,  in  more  than  half  a 
dozen  places  the  analytic  critic  is  under  the  necessity  of  suppos- 
ing, in  order  to  conform  the  text  to  his  hypothesis,  that  an 
interloping  redactor  inserted  sometimes  Jahweh  for  Elohiin  and 
sometimes  Elohim  for  Jahweh.  No  reason  can  be  assigned  for 
this  arbitrary  tampering  with  the  text  of  the  original  writer, 
except  a  wanton  disposition  to  make  changes.  We  are  not 
aware  that  any  of  the  critics  have  gone  so  far  as  to  maintain 
that  the  intention  of  the  interpolator  in  making  these  arbitrary 
substitutions  was  to  remove  traces  of  plural  authorship  and  thus 
deceive  mankind. 

(3)  Still  further,  the  interchange  of  divine  names  is  not 
found  in  the  last  ten  chapters.  In  all  these  chapters  the  name 
Jahweh  appears  but  once.^  In  every  case,  with  this  one  excep- 
tion, Elohhn  is  employed  to  designate  the  Divine  Being.  Yet 
the  critics,  notwithvStanding,  go  right  on  with  their  analysis, 
dividing  up  this  portion  of  Genesis  between  E  and  J,  assigning 
to  the  latter  even  whole  chapters  in  which  Elohim\s  exclusively 
employed.  * 

Such  are  some  of  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  divine 
names  in  Genesis  and  the  anal^'sis  of  this  book  into  several 
documents  written  by  different  authors.  Elohim  is  found 
very  many  times  joined  to  Jahweh  in  a  so-called  Jehovistic 
document.  The  analysts  easily  reconcile  this  fact  with  their 
hypothesis  by  supposing  that  this  is  the  work  of  an  interpolator. 
Jahweh  is  found  in  a  so-called  Elohistic  document,  and  again 
the  aid  of  an  interpolating  redactor  is  invoked.  Repeatedly  are 
the  ndimes  Jahweh  and  Elohim  found,  each  just  where,  according 
to  the  hypothesis,  it  ought  not  to  be.     But  our  critics  again  show 

1  Gen.  15 :  1 ;  21 : 1 ;  22 :  11 ;  28 :  21.  ^Qen.  7  :  9, 17 ;  31 :  50. 

3  Gen.  49 :  18.  *  Gen.  43,  44. 


PLURALITY  OF  AUTHORS  II5 

themselves  equal  to  the  emergency  by  suggesting  that  some 
redactor  sometimes  substituted  Elohim  for  Jahweh^  and  some- 
times Jahweh  for  Elohim,  making  these  arbitrary  changes  in 
mere  wantonness  ;  or  else  that  there  were  two  redactors,  a  Jeho- 
vist  and  an  Klohist,  and  that  the  former  got  his  work  in  on  the 
original  E  document,  and  the  latter  his  work  in  on  the  original 
J  document.  If,  in  chapter  after  chapter,  the  interchange  of  the 
divine  names  disappears  altogether,  the  critic  still  sets  up 
his  analysis  just  as  in  the  chapters  where  the  varied  use  of 
the  divine  names  is  the  most  apparent.  Thus  are  the  facts 
and  the  text  conformed  to  the  analytic  hypothesis.  Thus 
what  seems  the  best  argument  for  this  hypothesis  loses  in  a 
great  degree  its  plausibility  and  strength  through  the  very  efforts 
that  must  be  made  in  its  behalf.  An  argument  is  scarcely 
admissible  which  creates  a  necessity  for  supposing  interpola- 
tions, substitutions,  or  other  alterations  in  the  biblical  text. 
Violence  of  this  kind  is  generally  resorted  to  in  desperate  cases, 
just  as  the  taking  of  human  life  is  considered  justifiable  only  in 
self-defense.  The  frequency  with  which  the  analysts  resort  to 
the  supposition  of  interpolations,  redactions,  or  other  changes 
in  the  text  of  Genesis,  in  order  to  carry  out  their  argument 
derived  from  the  use  of  the  divine  names,  is  certainly  suspicious, 
and  suggests  the  desperateness  of  the  case. 

5.  The  documentary  hypothesis,  as  it  is  at  this  time  held  and 
advocated  by  critics,  is  to  be  accepted  only  on  positive  and 
strong  evidence.  The  authors  designated  as  B,  D,  J,  P,  Q,  R, 
E^  J^  PS  PS  PS  etc.,  are  absolutely  unknown.  Their  names 
and  places  are  not  even  conjectured.  B  is  supposed  to  have 
been  an  Bphraimite,  and  J  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.  But  this  is  a 
mere  fancy,  without  a  scintilla  of  evidence  in  its  favor.  The 
absolute  ignorance  that  prevails  in  regard  to  these  authors  is 
evinced  by  the  fact  that  not  even  a  conjecture  is  offered  that  any 
one  of  them  bore  a  name  that  is  given  in  the  biblical  histories  or 
genealogies.  In  all  the  writings  of  all  these  men  and  in  all  the 
other  writings  contained  in  the  Bible,  there  is  not  a  hint  nor  an 
allusion  in  regard  to  the  name,  place,  position,  or  character  of 
any  of  them.  History  knows  nothing  of  them.  Tradition 
knows  nothing  of  them.  The  very  writings  attributed  to  them 
know  nothing  of  them.  The  whole  Bible  knows  nothing  of 
them.  The  analysts  themselves  do  not  name  a  single  man  who 
they  even  suppose  might  be  one  of  them.    The  argument  from 


Il6  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

silence  is,  at  best,  perhaps  only  presumptive,  but  in  this  case  the 
presumption  is  exceedingly  strong  that  the  supposed  host  of 
authors,  compilers,  interpolators,  and  redactors  had  no  existence. 
Such  a  presumption  is  to  be  overcome  only  by  conclusive 
evidence.  Such  evidence  in  this  case  does  not  seem  to  be 
forthcoming. 

6.  Let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  a  documentary  hypothesis  is 
not  incompatible  with  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Such  an  hypothesis  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  one  who 
firmly  held  the  traditional  belief.  ^  Principal  Cave,  an  advocate 
of  that  belief,  has  suggested  that  Moses  is  the  Jehovist  of 
the  critics.  Truly  he  may  have  acted,  as  before  suggested,  as 
compiler,  editor,  and  redactor,  as  well  as  author.  The  documen- 
tary hypothesis,  then,  even  if  proved,  does  not  disprove  Mosaic 
authorship. 

We  have  now  reviewed  a  number  of  the  arguments  that  are 
urged  against  the  traditional  belief.  Some  of  them,  such  as  the 
arguments  founded  on  the  silence  of  succeeding  books,  the  cen- 
tralization of  worship  and  divergences  of  the  Mosaic  laws,  the 
non-adaptation  of  these  to  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  and 
the  account  of  the  finding  of  the  book  of  the  law  in  the  time  of 
Josiah,  have  not  been  considered.  These  will  be  attended  to  as 
we  proceed  in  the  presentation  of  evidence  and  arguments  on  the 
other  side.  We  will  present  the  internal  evidence  in  the  first 
place,  and  then  the  external. 

» Vitringa,  Observationes  SacrcBt  p.  413. 


PART  HI 

INTERNAL  EVIDENCE 


PART  III 
INTERNAL  EVIDENCE 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  ADAPTATION   OF   THE   FIVE  BOOKS  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH  TO 

THE  POSITION  WHICH  THEY  OCCUPY  IN  THE 

SACRED  VOLUME 

This  argument  involves  the  principle  that  adaptation  indicates 
design.  The  Pentateuch  is  adapted  to  serve  as  an  introduction 
to  the  rest  of  the  Bible,  and  each  one  of  its  five  books  is  adapted 
to  the  place  in  which  it  is  found.  No  change  in  the  order  of 
these  books  can  be  made  without  derangement  and  confusion. 
The  displacement  of  the  Pentateuch  from  its  position  as  the 
introductory  part  of  the  Scriptures  would  produce  a  similar 
result. 

Organic  unity  characterizes  the  Bible  in  all  its  parts,  not 
excepting  the  Pentateuch.  The  Old  and  New  Testaments  are 
complements  of  one  another.  The  New  cannot  be  understood 
without  the  Old ;  the  Old  would  be  incomplete  and  comparatively 
meaningless  without  the  New.  The  opening  verse  of  Matthew 
involves  the  Old  Testament  historj^,  ritual,  and  prophecy:  "The 
book  of  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of  David,  the 
son  of  Abraham."  1  Who  was  Christ,  the  Anointed,  the  Mes- 
siah ?  who  was  David  ?  and  who  was  Abraham  ?  These  questions 
can  be  answered  only  in  the  light  of  Old  Testament  history, 
prophecy,  ritual,  and  types.  The  Epistles  presuppOvSe  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  ;  the  Acts  presuppose  the  Gospels  ;  the  Gospels 
presuppose  the  prophecies  and  Psalms,  the  history,  sacrifices, 
and  types  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Also,  among  the  Old  Testament  books  there  is  an  orderly  suc- 
cession.    This  fact  was  recognized  and  is  formally  suggested  by 

» Matt.  1 :  1. 

119 


I20  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

the  authors  themselves.  Every  book  after  Genesis  to  Nehemiah 
begins  with  the  copulative  "  And  "  ( Hebrew,  IVaw),  with  but  two 
exceptions,  Deuteronomy  and  the  First  Book  of  Chronicles, 
which  are  in  the  main  repetitions,  and  to  some  extent  overlap 
preceding  books.  The  Book  of  Nehemiah  is  no  exception  ;  for, 
after  the  title,  which  consists  only  of  three  words,  we  have  the 
Waw  connecting  what  follows  with  the  Book  of  Ezra.  Thus  it  is 
with  all  the  preceding  books.  There  is  no  gap  left  in  the  his- 
tory, in  the  transition  from  one  book  to  another,  and  with  the 
two  exceptions  above  mentioned  (where  the  initial  Waw  is 
omitted),  there  is  no  overlapping,  each  book  taking  up  the 
history  precisely  where  the  preceding  book  left  it.  Though 
Deuteronomy  and  Chronicles  in  part  repeat  and  overlap  what 
precedes,  yet  are  they  necessary  as  connecting  links.  They 
each  carry  the  history  be3^ond  the  point  reached  in  the  preced- 
ing book.  The  Book  of  Ezra  takes  up  the  historical  thread  just 
where  it  is  dropped  by  Chronicles,  and  the  Book  of  Joshua  just 
where  it  was  dropped  b}'  Deuteronomy.  The  initial  sentence  of 
Joshua,  And  it  came  to  pass  after  the  death  of  Moses,  presup- 
poses Deuteronomy,  which  closes  with  an  account  of  the  death 
and  burial  of  Moses.  In  like  manner  Deuteronomy  presupposes 
Numbers.  Without  this  book  there  would  be  a  gap  of  nearly 
forty  years  between  Eeviticus  and  Deuteronomy.  Besides,  Deuter- 
onomy presupposes  in  another  way  the  preceding  books.  In  the 
judgment  of  Christendom,  as  the  name  indicates,  Deuteronomy 
is  a  repetition  of  preceding  laws,  laws  that  are  found  only  in  the 
preceding  books.  Numbers  presupposes  Leviticus.  It  begins 
with  "And"  (Waw),  indicative  of  continuation,  and  it  takes  up 
the  history  precisely  where  Levitibus  leaves  it,  at  the  close  of  the 
account  of  the  laws  enacted  at  Sinai.  Eeviticus  in  turn  presup- 
poses Exodus.  It  has  the  connecting  IVaw,  and  at  the  very 
outset  refers  to  the  tabernacle  as  described  in  the  preceding 
book.  Leviticus  is  a  continuation  of  the  ritualistic  legislation 
which  is  begun  in  Exodus.  Without  the  latter,  the  former  is 
like  a  bough  lopped  off,  or  a  severed  limb.  Then  again.  Exodus, 
true  to  the  suggestion  of  its  copulative  initial,  is  the  continua- 
tion of  the  history  begun  in  Genesis.  That  history  relates  to 
the  chosen  people,  and  it  runs  through  all  the  books  from  Gene- 
sis to  Nehemiah.  But  it  was  important  to  know  who  the  chosen 
people  were.  They  were  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  and  hence 
the  life  of  Abraham  is  given.     But  who  was  Abraham?    This 


ADAPTATION  121 

involves  the  origin  of  mankind  and  their  division  into  races  and 
nations,  and,  as  a  preface  to  the  whole,  a  brief  account  of  the 
origin  of  the  world  is  given.  Thus  Genesis  stands  properly  as 
the  first  book  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  the  whole  Bible.  ^  It 
brings  the  history  of  the  peculiar  people  down  to  their  happy 
settlement  in  Egypt  and  the  death  of  Jacob.  Then  Exodus 
takes  up  the  story  and  gives  a  history  of  the  oppression,  the 
deliverance,  and  the  earliest  legislation.  Leviticus  continues 
the  record  of  the  legislation.  Numbers  relates  the  thirty-eight 
years'  wandering  in  the  wilderness  and  accounts  for  the  failure 
of  the  Israelites  to  march  on  to  the  promised  land.  Then 
Deuteronomy  gives  a  review  of  the  history  and  the  legislation, 
and  closes  with  an  account  of  Moses'  viewing  the  promised  land 
from  the  top  of  Pisgah  and  of  his  death  and  burial. 

Thus  every  book  of  the  PentatenrVi  i,s  in  its  proper  place. 
Each  would  be  out  of  place  anywhere  else  than  where  it  is. 
Now  adaptation  and  orderly  arrangement  suggest  preparation 
and  design.  Reverent  and  thoughtful  minds  are  not  disposed 
to  think  that  things  exist  or  happen  by  chance.  The  hat  is 
adapted  to  the  head.  The  hat,  then,  was  made  for  the  head,  and 
the  head  is  before  the  hat  in  the  order  of  existence.  Paul 
teaches  that  the  woman  was  created  for  the  man.^  Then  the 
man  was  before  the  woman.  Now  each  book  of  the  Pentateuch 
is  precisely  adapted  to  the  place  it  occupies.  Exodus  is  adapted 
to  follow  Genesis ;  hence  the  natural  conclusion  is  that  it  was 
intended  to  follow  Genesis,  and  that  Genesis  was  first  in  the 
order  of  existence.  It  is  not  natural,  it  is  almost  unreasonable, 
to  suppose  that  some  author  first  wrote  Exodus,  and  then  that 
the  same  or  another  author  wrote  another  book  adapted  to  go 
before  the  other.  So  of  all  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  Deu- 
teronomy is  adapted  to  the  place  it  occupies.  It  is  not  suited  to 
precede  Numbers,  nor  immediately  to  follow  Leviticus.  It  is 
natural  and  reasonable  to  conclude  that  it  was  intended  to  be  the 
fifth  book  of  the  Pentateuch. 

But  the  hypothesis  of  the  analysts  is,  that  Deuteronomy  was 
written  first,  and  that  the  other  books  were  not  written  till 
several  hundred  years  afterward.  It  is,  perhaps,  conceivable  that 
the  orderly  arrangement  of  the  Pentateuchal  books  and  the 
adaptation  of  each  to  its  place  were  the  work  of  editors,  com- 

'Kuenen  says,  speaking  of  the  Hexateuch,  "The  Book  of  Genesis  fig- 
ures as  an  indispensable  introduction  "  ( Hexateuch,  p.  4 ).  *  I.  Cor.  11 :  8,  9. 


122  MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP    OP   THE    PENTATEUCH 

pilers,  and  redactors,  who,  by  combining,  curtailing,  condens- 
ing, and  expanding  original  documents,  and  by  substitutions, 
additions,  transpositions,  and  other  emendations,  worked  up 
books  nicely  adjusted  to  each  other  and  characterized  by  an 
admirable  organic  unity.  It  is,  perhaps,  conceivable  that  these 
shrewd,  skillful,  and  far-seeing  manipulators,  whose  wonderful 
handiwork,  according  to  the  hypothesis,  deceived  even  the  I,ord 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles  and  led  the  church  and  the  world 
astray  until  the  advent  of  Voltaire  and  his  criticism,  had  not 
sense  enough,  according  to  the  showing  of  the  analytic  critics, 
to  remove  the  most  palpable  absurdities  and  most  glaring  con- 
tradictions from  the  documents  which  they  altered  and  amended 
with  so  much  freedom  and  skill.  This  hypothesis,  we  must 
admit,  is  conceivable ;  for  critics  have  conceived  it,  though  it 
took  many  minds,  striving  many  years,  to  work  it  out.  But,  con- 
ceivable though  it  be,  it  is  extremely  improbable,  and  ought  to 
be  received  only  on  the  best  of  evidence. 

But,  to  resume,  the  Pentateuchal  books  are  nicely  adjusted  to 
one  another.  Each  book  would  be  incomplete  without  the 
others.  Bach  one  is  adapted  to  the  place  it  occupies.  There  is 
reason  to  believe,  therefore,  that  each  book  was  prepared  and 
intended  to  succeed  the  one  that  precedes  it,  in  the  order  in 
which  we  have  them.  If  this  be  so,  Deuteronomy  was  the  last 
written,  and  the  hypothesis  of  the  analysts  that  the  other  four 
books  were  not  written  till  the  exile  or  after  it  must  be  aban- 
doned. 


CHAPTER  II 

DEUTERONOMY  PRESUPPOSES  OTHER  PENTATEUCHAL  BOOKS 

That  Deuteronomy  presupposes  other  Pentateuchal  books  has 
already  been  suggested,  but  is  worthy  of  further  consideration. 

That  Deuteronomy  is,  in  the  judgment  of  Christendom,  a  repe- 
tition of  previously  existing  laws,  the  name  itself  indicates. 
This  is  also  the  judgment  of  the  analytics  themselves.  Reuss, 
speaking  of  Deuteronomy  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  says,  *'I1  n'y 
avait  done  la  de  nouveau  que  la  form "  ^  ( * '  There  was  nothing 
new  in  it  except  the  form"  ).  Graf  presents  the  same  view,  as 
follows :  "Das  Buch  lehrte  ja  nichts  an  und  fiir  sich  Neues,  .  .  . 
und  der  Verfasser,  indem  er  Mose  seine  Ermahnungen  in  den 
Mund  legte,  hatte  nur  den  Zweck,  dass  Jeder  aufs  Neue  daran 
gemahnt  wiirde  dem  alten  Gesetze  treu  zu  bleiben.  .  .  .  Wie 
hatte  auch  Josia  so  dariiber  erschrecken  konnen,  dass  das  in 
diesem  Buche  Vorgeschriebene  von  den  Vatern  nicht  beobachtet 
worden  und  darum  das  Volk  den  Zorn  Jahwe's  auf  sich  geladen, 
wenn  er  sich  nicht  bewusst  gewesen  ware,  dass  ihnen  diese  Gebote 
bekannt  waren?"  ^  (**The  book  teaches  nothing  that  is  really 
new,  .  .  .  and  the  composer,  while  he  put  his  exhortations  in  the 
mouth  of  Moses,  had  in  mind  only  to  admonish  anew  every  one 
to  be  faithful  to  the  old  law.  .  .  .  How  could  Josiah  have  been 
so  alarmed  at  non-observance,  by  the  fathers,  of  the  things 
written  in  this  book  and  at  the  wrath  of  Jehovah  brought  upon 
the  people  by  themselves,  if  he  himself  had  not  been  aware  that 
these  commands  were  known  to  them?")  Wellhausen  makes 
similar  declarations  :  ' '  Die  literarische  Abhangigkeit  des  Deuter- 
onomiums  von  den  jehovistischen  Gesetzen  und  Erzahlungen 
ohnehin  erwiesen  und  anerkannt  ist"  ^  ("The  literary  dependence 
of  Deuteronomy  on  the  Jehovistic  laws  and  narratives  is  inde- 
pendently shown  and  is  acknowledged").  Wellhausen,  un- 
willing to  admit  that  any  of  the  first  four  books  of  the  Penta- 
teuch had  an  existence  before  Deuteronomy,  supposes  that  the 

1  L'HMoire  Sainte,  Vol.  I.,  Int.,  p.  160. 

*  Die  Oeschichtlichen  Bucher  des  Alten  Testaments^  p.  25.       ^  I*rolegomena,  p.  34. 

123 


124  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

prophets  had  written  down  some  of  their  speeches,  and  the 
priests  some  of  their  precepts,  and  that  Deuteronomy  presup- 
poses still  earlier  documents  and  borrows  materials  largely  from 
them. 

Though  Kuenen  dogmatically  asserts  that  "a  written  regula- 
tion of  the  cultus  did  not  exist  in  the  pre-Deuteronomic  times, ' '  ^ 
he  admits  that  Deuteronomy  is  largely  a  repetition  of  what  is 
contained  in  the  preceding  books.  Some  of  his  declarations  are 
as  follows  :  * '  Deuteronomy  2  :  2-23  is  a  free  recension  of  Num- 
bers 20:14-23;  21:1  sqq. ;  and  Deuteronomy  2:24-3:11,  of 
Numbers  21 :  21-25.  Beneath  Deuteronomy  3 :  12-20  lies  the  same 
conception  of  the  settlement  in  the  transjordanic  district  which 
we  find  in  Numbers  32.  With  regard  to  the  events  at  Sinai, 
Deuteronomy  5,  9,  10  reproduce  the  representations  of  Exodus 
19,  24,  32,  34."  2 

Many  other  such  statements  are  made  by  this  author.  He,  of 
course,  does  not  mean  that  Deuteronomy  refers  to  and  quotes 
Exodus  and  Numbers,  yet  such  are  his  declarations.  According 
to  the  rigid  law  of  criticism  laid  down  by  the  analytic  critics, 
Kuenen' s  book  on  the  Pentateuch  must  have  been  written  by 
two  authors,  or  at  least  been  worked  over  by  a  redactor.  Though 
he,  of  course,  stoutly  maintains  that  Exodus  and  Numbers  came 
into  existence  centuries  after  Deuteronomy,  he  makes  various 
declarations  which  literally  affirm  the  fact  that  the  latter  refers 
to  and  quotes  from  the  former. 

The  fact  thus  admitted  by  the  leaders  of  the  analytic  school  of 
critics,  that  the  laws  contained  in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch are  recognized  in  Deuteronomy  by  repetition,  quotation, 
reproduction,  and  reference,  demonstrates  the  prior  existence  of 
these  laws,  and  also  suggests,  and  at  least  renders  probable,  the 
prior  existence  of  the  books  containing  them. 

To  escape  the  latter  conclusion,  the  analytic  critics  maintain 
that  the  Deuteronomist  did  not  refer  to,  quote,  and  reproduce 
laws  as  they  are  contained  in  the  middle  books,  but  as  contained 
in  older  documents  that  have  perished.  But  the  existence  of 
such  documents  is  a  mere  hypothesis,  and  is  one  of  the  points 
in  dispute.  Thus  we  have  here  one  hypothesis  brought  in  and 
employed  to  help  prove  another.  To  this  procedure,  so  vicious 
from  a  logical  point  of  view,  there  are  serious  objections.  In  the 
first  place,  the  laws  as  reproduced  in  Deuteronomy  are  found  in 

» HeaouAe^mh^  p.  273,  *  Hezateuch^  p.  169. 


DEUTERONOMY  PRESUPPOSES  OTHER  PENTATEUCHAI,  BOOKS   1 25 

the  middle  books,  as  is  admitted;  and  they  are  found  nowhere 
else.  They  are  not  found  in  the  prophetic  books,  nor  in  any 
known  document  other  than  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Of  the  many  books  referred  to  and  quoted  in  Chronicles,  it  is  not 
claimed  that  any  of  them  contained  the  laws  reproduced  in 
Deuteronomy.  If  the  Deuteronomist  did  not  reproduce  these 
laws  from  Exodus  and  Numbers,  he  copied  them  from  an 
utterly  unknown  book,  by  an  utterly  unknown  author. 

Besides,  there  are  clear  indications  that  the  laws  as  contained 
in  Deuteronomy  are  of  a  later  form  than  as  contained  in  Exodus 
and  Numbers.  Take,  as  an  example,  the  legislation  in  regard 
to  the  avenger  of  blood  and  the  cities  of  refuge.  In  Exodus  it 
is  simply  provided  that  there  should  be  a  place  of  refuge  for  the 
unintentional  homicide,  and  that  the  altar  should  be  no  protec- 
tion to  the  willful  murderer.^  In  Numbers  it  is  enacted  that 
there  shall  be  six  cities  of  refuge,  three  on  each  side  of  the  Jor- 
dan, and  regulations  are  established  for  the  treatment  both  of 
intentional  and  unintentional  manslayers.^  In  the  fourth  chap- 
ter of  Deuteronomj^  there  is  an  account  of  the  actual  appoint- 
ment of  three  cities  of  refuge  east  of  the  Jordan,  and  their  names 
are  given.  ^  This  was  done  at  the  time  when  the  Israelites  were 
in  possession  only  of  the  transjordanic  portion  of  Canaan. 
Further  on  in  Deuteronomy  the  appointment  of  three  cities  of 
refuge  in  western  Canaan  is  enjoined,  together  with  the  construc- 
tion of  roads  to  facilitate  the  flight  of  the  manslayer.  There  is 
also  this  additional  regulation,  that  in  case  of  the  future  enlarge- 
ment of  territory  three  additional  cities  of  refuge  should  be 
appointed.  Another  supplementary  regulation  set  forth  in  this 
passage  is  the  intervention  of  the  elders  in  the  trial  of  cases  as 
the  representatives  of  the  congregation.-*  Then,  in  Joshua  the 
record  is  completed  by  the  account  of  the  appointment  of  three 
refuge  cities  in  west  Palestine.  Thus  the  progressive  history  of 
the  institution  of  refuge  cities  and  of  the  legislation  pertaining 
thereto  proves  that  what  is  contained  in  Deuteronomy  on  this 
subject  presupposes  and  continues  what  is  contained  in  Numbers. 

The  institution  of  the  Passover  furnishes  a  similar  illustration. 
We  have  the  first  account  of  it  in  Exodus,  where  many  laws  are 
enacted  with  regard  to  it.^  In  Leviticus  it  is  referred  to  as 
already  a  well-known  institution, «  and  is  mentioned  in  order  to 

^  Ex.  21  :  13,  14.  »  Num.  35 :  1 1-29.  ^  Deut.  4  :  41-43. 

*  Deut.  19  :  1-13.  »  Ex.  12  :  1-28.  «  Lev.  23  :  4-8. 


126  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

be  placed  on  a  legal  footing  along  with  the  other  feasts.  Again, 
in  Numbers  the  Passover  is  referred  to  as  being  well-known,  and 
as  being  kept  according  to  laws  previously  enacted ;  i  j^et  there 
is  supplementary  legislation  in  Numbers  on  this  subject.  It  is 
enacted  that  those  who,  by  reason  of  uncleanness,  or  by  reason 
of  being  on  a  journey,  could  not  keep  the  Passover  on  the  four- 
teenth day  of  the  first  month  should  keep  it  on  the  fourteenth 
day  of  the  second.  Deuteronomy  also  contains  supplementary 
legislation  on  this  subject.  In  Exodus,  while  as  yet  the  taber- 
nacle had  no  existence,  the  Israelites  were  allowed  to  kill  and 
eat  the  passover  at  their  own  homes.  In  I^eviticus,  after  the 
erection  of  the  tabernacle,  it  was  enacted  that  the  Israelite  should 
kill  neither  ox,  nor  lamb,  nor  goat,  either  in  the  camp  or  out  of 
it,  but  should  bring  all  animals  for  slaughter  to  the  door  of  the 
tabernacle.  ^  But  the  tabernacle  in  the  wilderness  was  constantly 
moving  from  one  place  to  another,  hence  the  place  of  sacrifice 
and  of  killing  the  paschal  lamb  was  constantly  changing.  What, 
then,  was  to  be  done  when  the  Israelites  should  be  settled  in 
Canaan,  and  the  tabernacle  cease  to  wander  and  be  fixed  in  one 
place,  and  many  Israelitish  families  be  living  at  great  distances 
from  it?  This  emergency  is  provided  for  by  supplementary 
legislation  in  Deuteronomy.  It  mentions  the  Passover  as  estab- 
lished and  known,  enjoins  its  observance  (without  mentioning 
on  what  day  of  the  month),  and  prescribes  that  in  Canaan  the 
place  of  observance  should  be  that  chosen  for  sacrifice  and  wor- 
ship.^ This  supplementary  regulation  implies  and  presupposes 
the  legislation  contained  in  the  preceding  books  on  the  same 
subject. 

Again,  Exodus  forbids  the  loaning  of  money  on  interest  to 
Hebrews,  but  says  nothing  about  foreigners.*  Leviticus  forbids 
the  loaning  of  money  or  of  food  on  interest  to  a  poor  Israelite  or 
a  poor  sojourning  stranger,  but  is  silent  in  regard  to  foreigners 
in  general.  5  Deuteronomy  forbids  the  lending  of  money,  food, 
or  anything  to  a  Hebrew  on  interest,  but  allows  the  lending  on 
interest  to  foreigners  in  general. «  We  have  here  repetition,  but 
also  supplementary  additions.  Exodus  forbids  the  charging  of 
interest  on  money.  Leviticus  forbids  it  on  money  and  food. 
Deuteronomy  forbids  it  on  money,  food,  and  everything  else. 
Here  is  progress  in  legislation,  suggesting  the  order  of  enact- 

»  Num.  9 :  1-5.  «  Lev.  17  :  3,  4.  3  Deut.  16 : 1-8. 

*Ex.  22 ;  25.  ^Lev.  25 :  35-37.  « Deut.  23 :  19,  20. 


DEUTERONOMY  PRESUPPOSES  OTHER  PENTATEUCHAIy  BOOKS  1 27 

ment  as  being  the  same  as  that  of  the  books  of  Exodus, 
Leviticus,  and  Deuteronomy. 

Once  more,  two  entire  chapters  (one  hundred  and  sixteen 
verses)  of  Leviticus  are  taken  up  with  the  subject  of  leprosy, 
giving  minute  directions  as  to  how  it  is  to  be  detected  and 
treated.^  Deuteronomy  contains  but  one  verse  in  regard  to  this 
subject,  as  follows:  "Take  heed  in  the  plague  of  leprosy,  that 
thou  observe  diligently,  and  do  according  to  all  that  the  priests 
the  Levites  shall  teach  you :  as  I  commanded  them,  so  ye  shall 
observe  to  do."  ^  This  is  an  exact  reference  to  the  laws  in  Levit- 
icus, which  were  extensive  and  minute,  and  were  committed  to 
Aaron  and  his  successors,  ^  Take  another  example  of  progressive 
legislation  :  In  Numbers  it  is  enacted  that  the  death  penalty  shall 
not  be  inflicted  on  the  testimony  of  one  witness;  there  must 
be  witnesses,  but  how  many  is  not  specified.'^  This  law  is  sup- 
plemented in  Deuteronomy  with  two  additions,  one  of  which 
fixes  the  minimum  number  of  witnesses  at  not  less  than  two, 
and  the  other  requires  the  witnesses  to  be  foremost  in  the 
execution.^ 

Thus  it  is  shown  that  the  laws  are  reproduced  in  Deuteronomy 
in  their  complete  and  latest  form,  and  that  the  laws  as  set  forth 
in  Numbers  and  Exodus  are  clearly  in  their  earlier  and  less  com- 
plete form.  This  fact  clearly  proves  that  the  middle  books  pre- 
ceded Deuteronomy  in  time,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  laws 
and  history  reproduced  in  Deuteronomy  were  copied  from  an- 
other source.     Of  our  argument,  then,  this  is  the  sum: 

1.  Deuteronomy  is  largely  a  reproduction  of  preexisting  laws. 

2.  These  are  found  in  Exodus  and  Numbers,  and  are  found 
nowhere  else. 

3.  The  literary  dependence  of  Deuteronomy  on  these  middle 
books,  or  on  what  is  contained  in  them,  is  thus  demonstrated, 
and  is  also  admitted  by  some  of  the  analytic  school. 

4.  Deuteronomy  reproduces  the  laws  in  supplemented  and 
extended,  and  hence  later,  forms.  Exodus  and  Numbers  set 
forth  these  laws  evidently  in  their  earlier  forms. 

5.  It  is  natural  and  logical  to  conclude  that  the  books  which 
contain  the  laws  in  their  older  form  are  the  older  books,  and  the 
book  which  reproduces  these  laws  in  their  later  form  is  the  later 
book. 

6.  The  opposite    opinion,   namely,   that    Deuteronom}^   pre- 

» Chs.  13, 14.       *  Deut.  24  :  8.       =»  Lev.  13  :  2.       *  Num.  35  :  30.      ^  Deut.  17  :  6,  7. 


128  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

ceded  ExodUvS  and  Numbers,  involves  the  conclusion  that  the 
writer  of  these  two  books  recorded  the  laws  in  their  more  ancient 
form  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  mankind  in  regard  to  the  time 
of  his  writing.  How  very  shrewd,  skillful,  and  far-seeing  he 
must  have  been,  though  not  entirely  honest ! 

As  an  offset  to  these  undeniable  facts  the  analytic  critics  bring 
in  an  hypothesis,  or  rather  a  series  of  hypotheses  equal  in  num- 
ber to  the  plagues  of  Egypt.  That  Deuteronomy  was  unknown 
until  the  time  of  King  Josiah,  is  an  hypothesis  ;  that  the  preced- 
ing books  were  not  written  until  several  centuries  afterward,  is 
an  hypothesis;  that  before  Josiah 's  time  there  were  documents 
in  circulation,  but  which  afterward  perished,  that  embodied 
much  of  the  history  and  legislation  contained  in  Exodus  and 
Numbers,  is  an  hypothesis ;  that  these  documents  were  amal- 
gamated in  time  into  one,  is  an  hypothesis  ;  and  there  are  many 
points  that  come  in  as  hypotheses  subsidiary  to  the  above.  The 
authors  and  amalgamators,  editors  and  redactors,  of  these  docu-. 
ments  are  utterly  unknown ;  their  names  are  not  even  conjec- 
tured. The  existence  of  these  writers  and  their  writings  is,  at 
best,  a  mere  matter  of  inference,  and  is  a  subject  of  dispute. 

Now,  this  bringing  in  of  mere  hypotheses  in  order  to  set  aside 
the  fact  that  Deuteronomy  does  in  reality  reproduce  much  of  the 
history  and  legislation  recorded  in  Exodus  and  Numbers,  is  not 
a  procedure  that  will  commend  itself  to  the  sober  judgment  of 
thinking  men.  Such  argumentation  may  be  interesting  and 
convincing  to  critics,  who  have  an  overweening  confidence  in 
their  own  methods,  but  will  assuredly  be  repudiated  in  the  end 
by  the  common  sense  and  logical  thinking  of  mankind.  Since 
every  subsidiary  hypothesis  is  a  weak  point,  it  is  seen  that  the 
analytic  theory  and  argumentation  are  largely  made  up  of  weak 
points. 


CHAPTER  III 

STYLE 

We  have  already  dealt  with  the  objection  that  the  Pentateuch 
is  written  in  different  styles,  and  therefore  could  not  have  been 
written  by  Moses  or  any  other  single  author.  In  reply,  we 
showed  that  many  authors  have  employed  different  styles  at  the 
same  period  of  life,  and  that  many  an  author  has  varied  in  style 
at  different  periods  of  life.  The  literary  activity  of  Moses  may 
have  continued  eighty  years,  or  longer.  Owing  to  his  varied  and 
wonderful  experiences,  the  varied  suJDJects  of  which  he  treated, 
and  his  surpassing  and  versatile  talents,  there  need  be  no 
diflSculty  in  believing  that  his  style,  both  in  thought  and  in  dic- 
tion, varied  with  his  age  and  circumstances,  mood  and  subject. 
Certainly,  so  far  as  style  of  language  is  concerned,  he  may 
have  written  the  Pentateuch.  He  undoubtedly  spoke  and  wrote 
the  Hebrew  language  in  its  purity.  The  parting  address,^  the 
Ninetieth  Psalm,  the  song  at  the  Red  Sea,  and  other  composi- 
tions that  are  expressly  ascribed  to  him,^  are  not  failures  in  point 
of  diction.  We  do  not,  however,  forget  that  our  critics  deny 
that  Moses  is  the  author  of  any  of  these  compositions.  They 
indeed  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Pentateuch  nowhere 
calls  itself  by  his  name,  and  is  not  ascribed  to  him  as  its  author ; 
yet,  in  the  case  of  compositions  that  are  directly  and  expressly 
ascribed  to  him,  they  do  not  hesitate  to  declare  the  record  false. 
But,  after  all,  they  admit  that  in  the  Pentateuch  we  have  some 
genuine  Mosaic  productions — the  book  of  the  covenant,  per- 
haps,^ or  other  groups  of  laws,  though  they  claim  that  it  cannot 
be  certainly  known  what  Moses  did  actually  write;  but,  most 
assuredly,  whatever  he  wrote  w^as  in  pure  Hebrew,  like  the  rest 
of  the  Pentateuch.  The  fact  that  the  critics  have  difficulty  in 
deciding  in  their  own  minds  what  Moses  wrote,  indicates  that  the 
Hebrew  of  Moses  and  of  the  Mosaic  age  is  the  Hebrew  of  the 
Pentateuch.    Possibly  it  is  fear  of  being  confronted  with  this 

iDeut.  32.  «Ex.  17:14;  24:4.  » Ex.  20:  1-23:  33. 

9  129 


130  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OI^   THE    PENTATEUCH 

troublesome  fact  that  makes  some  of  the  critics  so  cautious  aoout 
admitting  that  there  is  anything  in  the  Pentateuch  that  Moses 
wrote.  Driver  does  indeed  venture  to  say  that  the  song  at  the 
Red  Sea  is  probably  Mosaic;  but  Professor  Cheyne,  who  is  a 
faithful  follower  of  the  analysts,  calls  this  declaration  "a  start- 
ling phenomenon,"  and  "hesitates  to  contemplate  the  conse- 
quences which  might  possibly  follow  from  the  acceptance  of  this 
view."  ^  What  this  critic  so  much  dreaded  is  the  damage  that 
might  be  done  to  the  post-Mosaic  theory  of  the  analysts.  They 
guard  that  theory  more  carefully  than  watch-dogs,  and  they 
recognize  the  fact  that  the  admission  of  the  decalogue,  or  of  any- 
thing else  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  to  be  of  INIosaic  origin  or 
of  the  Mosaic  age  involves  conclusions  in  regard  to  the  state  of 
the  Hebrew  language  of  that  period  that  conflict  with  their  views. 
Arguing  as  they  do  about  style,  they  must  maintain  that  there 
was  a  marked  change  in  the  language  during  the  time  between 
Moses  and  Josiah,  a  period  of  more  than  eight  hundred  years. 
As  their  hypothesis  is  that  Deuteronomy  first  appeared  in 
Josiah' s  time,  and  the  four  preceding  books  during  the  exile  or 
after  it,  for  the  sake  of  their  theorj^  they  feel  constrained  to 
maintain  that  Moses  wrote  nothing  contained  in  the  Pentateuch. 
They  may  admit  that  Moses  originated  some  of  the  Pentateuchal 
laws,  but  they  must  insist  that  they  were  recodified  and  recast  in 
post-Mosaic  Hebrew. 

But  after  all  the  care  and  caution  exercised  by  these  critics, 
the  argument  from  style  may  be  turned  against  them.  The 
first  four  books,  according  to  their  hypothesis,  originated  at  a 
time  when  the  Hebrew  language  had  begun  to  take  on  Aramaic 
corruptions.  Jeremiah's  stjde  is  not  purely  Hebraic,  though  he 
was  contemporary  with  King  Josiah.  One  entire  verse  is  in 
Aramaic.  2  In  Ezra  and  Daniel  there  are  long  Aramaic  passages. 
There  are  Aramaic  words  and  idioms  in  many  other  of  the  later 
books.  They  are  found,  or  at  least  claimed,  in  Chronicles, 
Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  Ruth,  Proverbs,  and  later  Psalms.  Pro- 
fessor W.  R.  Smith  says  that  such  writers  as  the  authors  of 
Chronicles  and  Ecclesiastes  use  "Aramaic  words  and  idioms 
which  would  have  puzzled  Moses  and  David."  ^ 

Now  the  question  for  these  critics  to  answer  is  this :  How  is 
the  fact  to  be  accounted  for  that  the  Pentateuch  is  free  from 

1  Founders  of  Old  Testament  Criticism,  p.  265.  2  jgj.^  jq  :  11. 

^  Old  Testament  %n  the  Jewish  Church,  p.  48. 


STYI.K  131 

Aramaisms  if  Deuteronomy  was  written  in  the  time  of  Josiah 
and  Jeremiah  and  the  other  books  were  gotten  up  in  the  time 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  ?  We  have  not  very  much  confidence  in 
these  linguistic  arguments,  but  it  seems  to  us  that  these  books 
must  all  have  originated  a  good  while  before  exilic  times  in 
order  to  escape  Aramaisms  which,  to  use  Professor  Smith's  phrase, 
would  have  proved  a  puzzle  to  Moses  as  well  as  David.  To  be 
sure,  according  to  the  documentar}^  hypothesis,  B,  J,  and  P  may 
have  lived  and  written  early  enough  to  retain  the  purity  of  the 
earlier  Hebrew  style,  but  how  about  the  editors,  revisers,  and 
redactors  who  worked  up  the  supposed  ancient  documents  into 
the  first  four  Pentateuchal  books  as  we  now  have  them  ?  Why 
were  no  Aramaic  peculiarities  thrust  into  the  text  by  these 
ofiO-cious  manipulators,  who  are  supposed  to  have  been  the  con- 
temporaries of  Ezra  ? 


CHAPTER  IV 

JOURNALISTIC  FORM 

A  CONSIDERATION  of  more  importance  than  that  of  mere  style, 
as  bearing  on  the  question  of  the  age  of  the  Pentateuch,  is  the 
journalistic  form  of  certain  portions  of  it.  The  book  as  a  whole 
is  certainly  not  a  journal,  but  some  portions  of  it  give  evidence 
of  having  been  written  from  time  to  time,  just  as  the  events 
recorded  in  them  occurred.  Portions  of  the  Pentateuch — the 
Book  of  Genesis,  for  instance — could  not  have  been  thus  written, 
and  have  neither  the  form  nor  appearance  of  a  journal.  A  jour- 
nal records  only  what  the  writer  himself  sees  and  hears,  or 
experiences  in  some  other  way.  Of  course,  then,  much  of  the 
Pentateuch  was  not  thus  written.  But  from  the  exodus  to  the 
close  of  the  wandering  many  events  might  be  recorded  in  this 
way.  And,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  removal  of  the  camp  from 
place  to  place,  the  speaking  of  God  to  Moses,  the  enactment  of 
laws,  and  many  other  events  appear  just  as  if  set  down  in  the  order 
and  at  the  time  of  their  occurrence  in  a  journal  kept  by  Moses, 
or  one  of  his  contemporaries.  Take,  as  an  example,  the  account 
of  the  marching  of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert :  ' '  These  are  the 
journeys  of  the  children  of  Israel,  which  went  forth  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt  with  their  armies  under  the  hand  of  Moses  and 
Aaron.  And  Moses  wrote  their  goings  out  according  to  their 
journeys  by  the  commandment  of  the  lyord  :  and  these  are  their 
journeys  according  to  their  goings  out."  i  In  the  declaration 
that  **  Moses  wrote  their  goings  out  according  to  their  journeys  " 
it  is  clearly  implied  that  Moses  kept  a  journal.  Then  follows 
the  journal,  or  extracts  from  it.  The  date  of  the  exodus  is  first 
given — the  fifteenth  day  of  the  first  month.  Then  follows  a  list 
of  marches  and  stations :  Rameses,  the  starting-point ;  first  en- 
campment, Succoth;  second  encampment,  Etham;  third,  Mig- 
dol;  fourth,  Marah, — forty-one  encampments  in  all.  The  jour- 
nalistic form  is  maintained  throughout :  From  Rameses  to 
Succoth  ;  from  Succoth  to  Etham  ;  from  Etham  to  Midgol ;  from 

1  Num.  33  :  1-49. 

132 


JOURNALISTIC    FORM  153 

Migdol  to  Marah ;  thus  on  and  on  until  the  arrival  at  Jordan, 
near  Jericho,  in  the  plains  of  Moab, 

There  are  traces  of  journalistic  composition  elsewhere  in  the 
Pentateuch.  After  the  defeat  of  the  Amalekites,  the  record  is, 
"And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Write  this  for  a  memorial  in  a 
book."  ^  A  correct  rendering  requires  the  definite  article —  ''the 
book."  Not  long  after  the  affair  of  the  Amalekites,  we  read  of 
Moses  delivering  the  words  of  the  Lord  orally,  but  also  of  his 
committing  these  words  to  writing.  "And  Moses  came  and  told 
the  people  all  the  words  of  the  Lord,  and  all  the  judgments :  .  .  . 
And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  the  Lord."  ^  "And  Moses 
wrote  this  law."  ^  "Now  therefore  write  ye  this  song  for  you, 
and  teach  it  the  children  of  Israel"  ^  (God's  command  to  Moses). 
' '  And  it  came  to  pass,  w^hen  Moses  had  made  an  end  of  writing 
the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book,  until  they  w^ere  finished,  that 
Moses  commanded  the  Levites,  which  bare  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant of  the  Lord,  saying.  Take  this  book  of  the  law,  and  put  it 
in  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  your  God."  ^ 

The  analytics  admit  that  many  passages  in  the  Pentateuch 
purport  to  have  been  written  as  a  journal.  Reuss,  speaking  of 
the  Pentateuch,  says,  "It  is  composed  in  such  a  manner  that 
one  ma}^  regard  it  in  great  part  as  the  journal  of  Moses,  in  which 
he  intermingles  the  recital  of  events  and  the  texts  of  laws,  with 
.scarcely  any  rational  order.  "^  And  again:  "  If  the  history  of 
the  emigration  had  been  written  by  Moses  himself,  and  if  the 
code  which  is  framed  into  this  history  had  been  composed  by 
him,  it  would  be  very  necessary  to  admit  that  we  have  the  jour- 
nal of  the  prophet.  That  alone  would  explain  the  incoherence 
of  the  matters  treated  of  in  it  and  the  absence  of  all  systematic 
order  in  the  innumerable  articles  of  laws,  everywhere  connected 
with  certain  localities  or  to  certain  epochs  of  the  sojourn  in  the 
desert.  The  idea  of  a  journal  is  everywhere  recommended  by 
two  facts  which  will  not  fail  to  be  used  in  its  support.  If  the 
narrative  part  is  detached  from  what  pertains  to  the  legislation 
properly  so-called,  an  almost  continuous  narrative  will  be  ob- 
tained of  the  life  of  Moses  from  his  birth  till  his  death,  in  an 
order  wdiich  may  be  called  chronological,  and  often  determined 
by  precise  dates.  On  the  other  hand,  the  numerous  repetitions 
and  contradictions  in  the  legislative  part  lose  in  their  actual  form 

>  Ex.  17 :  14.  2  Ex.  24  :  3,  4.  =»  Deut.  81  :  9. 

*  Deut.  31 :  19.  »  Deut.  31 :  24-26.  «  L'HMoireSainte,  Int.,  p.  159. 


134  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OP   THE    PENTATEJUCH 

whatever  is  embarrassing  to  us  ;  because  it  may  be  admitted  that 
in  a  considerable  space  of  time  many  a  prescription  might  be 
repeatedly  inculcated,  or  even  changed,  according  to  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  moment,  or  in  consequence  of  a  more  exact  apprecia- 
tion of  the  means  of  execution. "^ 

In  regard  to  these  declarations,  for  the  present  we  only  remark 
that  they  pretty  clearly  indicate  that  the  real  reason  why  Reuss 
did  not  fully  accept  the  journal  theory,  as  applied  to  considerable 
portions  of  the  Pentateuch,  was  his  opposition  to  its  Mosaic 
origin. 

The  journalistic  feature  of  the  Pentateuch  is  recognized  also 
by  Wellhausen,  though  not  in  express  terms.  In  speaking  of 
what  he  calls  **the  breaking  of  the  joints  of  the  narrative  by 
the  enormous  grovd:h  of  the  legal  contents,"  he  says,  "  Und  in 
dieser  Weise  gehort  die  Thora  hinein  in  die  Geschichtsdarstel- 
lung,  nicht  nach  ihrem  Stoff  als  Inhalt  irgend  eines  Kodex,  son- 
dern  nach  ihrer  Form  als  das  berufsmassige  Thun  Mose's  "  2  ( '<  jn 
this  way  the  Tora  enters  into  the  historical  representation,  not 
according  to  its  matter  as  contents  of  a  code,  but  according  to  its 
form  as  the  professional  doings  of  Moses"  ). 

Here  we  have  the  essential  features  of  a  journal  —  the  laws 
presented,  not  in  a  body,  as  finally  completed,  but  as  they  were 
issued  from  time  to  time  by  Moses.  We  do  not  quote  Well- 
hausen as  sajdng  that  any  part  of  the  Pentateuch  consists  of 
matter  taken  from  a  journal  kept  by  Moses.  As  a  matter  of 
course,  such  an  admission  by  him  is  not  to  be  expected.  He 
means  only  that  some  unknown  person,  designated  by  the  sym- 
bol PC,  shrewdly  put  his  writing,  long  after  the  time  of  Moses, 
into  the  form  of  a  journal,  in  order  to  deceive  his  readers. 
Hence  he  speaks  of  "the  appearance  of  historical  reality  which 
the  priestly  code  creates  by  its  learned  art."^  Kuenen  suggests 
the  same  view.  He  admits  that  many  texts  concur  with  Deuter- 
onomy 30:  9  in  testifying  that  Moses  committed  to  writing 
chapters  5  to  26  of  that  book,  but  he  immediately  suggests  that 
this  may  be  "a  literary  artifice. "^ 

This  much  may  be  stated,  that  these  critics  all  admit  that 
a  good  deal  of  the  Pentateuch  has  the  form  and  appearance  of 
a  journal,  and  were  not  the  question  of  Mosaic  authorship  in- 
volved it  is  pretty  clear  that  they  would  admit  that  the  Penta- 

1  L'Histoire  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  126.  ^  Prolegoynena,  p.  358. 

3  "Gelehrter  Kunst,"  Prolegomena,  p.  363.  *■  Hexatevxih,  p.  15. 


JOURNALISTIC    FORM  I35 

teuch  is  in  this  respect  what  it  purports  to  be.  As  quoted  above, 
Reuss  says,  "  If  the  history  of  the  emigration  had  been  written 
by  Moses  himself,  and  if  the  code  which  is  framed  into  this  his- 
tory had  been  composed  by  him,  it  would  be  necessary  to  admit 
that  we  have  the  journal  of  the  prophet."^  But  may  we  not  in 
turn  say,  that  if  any  one  kept  a  journal  and  recorded  in  it  much 
that  is  contained  in  the  Pentateuch  it  must  have  been  Moses  ? 
The  conclusion  of  this  whole  matter  may  be  stated  as  follows  : 

1.  Much  of  the  Pentateuch  is  in  the  form  of  a  journal.  This 
the  critics  admit. 

2.  Much  of  it  not  only  appears,  but  purports,  to  be  a  journal. 
The  writer  desired  and  intended  that  it  should  be  so  regarded. 
This  also  is  admitted  by  the  critics. 

3.  If  the  passages  which  purport  to  be  from  somebody's 
journal  are  not  really  such,  the  writer  practiced  artifice  for  the 
purpose  of  deceiving.    This  is  also  admitted  by  the  critics. 

4.  It  is  expressly  stated  that  some  portions  of  the  Pentateuch, 
among  these  the  larger  part  of  Deuteronomy,  were  committed  to 
writing  by  Moses  at  the  very  time  when  the  events  related  took 
place.  If  this  is  not  true,  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  is  charge- 
able with  falsehood.     This,  if  not  admitted,  at  least  ought  to  be. 

In  view  of  all  these  facts,  is  it  not  probable  that  a  portion  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  in  reality  a  journal?  This  conclusion  is 
favored  by  form  and  purport,  the  style  of  the  writing,  and  ex- 
press declarations  of  the  Pentateuch  itself.  We  do  not  claim 
that  the  book  throughout  is  a  journal,  nor  is  this  necessary  to 
our  argument.  If  the  Book  of  Numbers,  more  than  half  of 
Deuteronomy,  and  portions  of  other  books  are  journalistic,  as 
they  seem  to  be,  the  author  must  have  been  on  the  ground, 
recording  events  as  they  occurred  ;  and  in  that  case  the  theory 
which  ascribes  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuchal  books  to  an  author, 
or  to  authors,  who  lived  long  after  the  time  of  Moses  will  have 
to  be  abandoned. 

*  UHistoire  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  126. 


CHAPTER  V 
ACQUAINTANCE  WITH  EGYPT 

Our  proposition  is,  that  the  Pentateuch  was  written  by  a  man 
who  had  a  minute  and  familiar  acquaintance  with  Egyptian  af- 
fairs, and  for  people  who  had  a  minute  and  familiar  acquaintance 
with  Egyptian  affairs.  The  establishment  of  this  proposition  will 
be  a  virtual  refutation  of  the  hypothesis  of  the  critics  concerning 
the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch.  For  a  minute  and  familiar  acquaint- 
ance with  Egyptian  affairs  presupposes  a  long  residence  in  Egypt. 
Moses  and  the  Israelites  had  a  long  residence  in  Egypt,  and  before 
they  left  it  had  acquired  a  thorough  knowledge  of  its  affairs. 
Even  the  analysts  have  not  had  the  hardihood  as  yet  to  deny  the 
story  of  the  exodus  altogether.  Moses  and  the  Israelites  then 
meet  the  requirements  of  our  proposition.  But  if  that  proposi- 
tion be  true, — and  we  intend  to  demonstrate  its  truth, — the  Penta- 
teuch could  have  originated  only  in  the  Mosaic  age.  There  is 
no  evidence  that  E,  D,  J,  P,  and  R,  the  supposed  authors  of  the 
Pentateuch,  ever  lived  in  Egypt.  Indeed,  there  is  no  evidence 
but  an  hypothesis  that  they  ever  lived  at  all,  and  there  is  not 
even  an  hypothesis  that  they  ever  lived  in  Egypt ;  nor  is  there 
any  reason  to  believe  that  the  Lsraelites,  after  the  Mosaic  age, 
were  at  any  time  minutely  acquainted  with  Egyptian  affairs. 

Even  on  the  theory  of  supernatural  and  plenary  inspiration,  it 
is  not  probable  that  any  one  not  well  acquainted  with  Egypt 
would  be  selected  by  divine  wisdom  to  write  the  Pentateuch. 
God  utilizes  human  knowledge  and  talents  as  far  as  possible. 
Christ's  disciples,  those  conversant  with  his  acts  and  sayings, 
were  employed  to  write  the  Gospels.  lyuke,  the  companion  of 
Paul,  was  employed  to  write  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The 
most  thoroughgoing  doctrine  of  divine  inspiration,  then,  would 
incline  us  to  expect  that  the  Pentateuch  would  prove  to  be  writ- 
ten by  a  man  who  spent  some  time  in  Egypt  and  had  an  exten- 
sive and  accurate  knowledge  of  it,  and  not  by  a  man,  or  (if  the 
reader  insists  on  a  plurality  of  authors)  by  men,  who  lived  at  a 
distance  from  it  and  never  saw  it. 

136 


ACQUAINTANCE  WITH    EGYPT  I37 

The  point  to  be  proved  is,  that  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch 
possessed  a  minute  and  familiar  acquaintance  with  Egyptian 
affairs,  and  that  he  assumes  the  same  minute  and  familiar 
acquaintance  on  the  part  of  those  for  whom  it  was  more  immedi- 
ately written.  We  proceed  to  state,  in  proof  and  illustration  of 
this  proposition,  a  few  of  the  many  facts  that  might  be  presented 
for  this  purpose.     A  volume  would  not  exhaust  this  subject. 

1.  The  allusion  to  the  Egyptian  custom  of  shaving.  "Then 
Pharaoh  sent  and  called  Joseph,  and  they  brought  him  hastily 
out  of  the  dungeon :  and  he  shaved  himself,  and  changed  his 
raiment,  and  came  in  unto  Pharaoh."  ^ 

Nearly  all  the  races  and  tribes  with  whom  the  ancient  Hebrews 
came  in  contact  let  their  hair  and  beard  grow ;  ^  but  the  Egyp- 
tians were  an  exception  in  this  respect.  Herodotus  states  that 
they  were  accustomed  to  let  their  hair  grow  only  in  time  of 
mourning.  =^  Wilkinson  says  that  "foreigners  who  were  taken  to 
Egypt  as  slaves,  having  beards  on  their  arrival,  were  compelled, 
on  entering  the  service  of  Egyptian  masters,  to  have  their  beards 
and  heads  shaved,"  and  that  "to  be  unshaven  was  regarded  as 
the  mark  of  a  low  condition,  or  of  a  slovenly  person."  * 

Now  it  is  to  be  observed  that  Joseph,  though  he  was  called 
hastily  to  appear  before  the  Egyptian  king,  was  allowed  time  to 
shave  himself.  No  explanation  is  made,  just  as  if  none  were 
needed ;  and  there  was  none  needed  if  the  account  was  written 
by  Moses,  or  in  the  Mosaic  age,  for  he  and  the  contemporary 
Israelites  were  well  acquainted  with  the  Egyptian  customs  and 
ideas,  which  made  it  necessary  that  Joseph  should  appear  shaven 
before  Pharaoh. 

2.  The  account  of  the  storm  of  hail  and  thunder.^ 

It  was  the  hail,  not  the  thunder,  that  constituted  the  plague. 
' '  And  the  hail  smote  throughout  all  the  land  of  Egypt  all  that 
was  in  the  field,  both  man  and  beast ;  and  the  hail  smote  every 
herb  of  the  field,  and  brake  every  tree  of  the  field.  "^  From  this 
declaration,  and  from  the  whole  passage,'  it  is  evident  that  the 
hail  did  all  the  damage.  But  though  this  fact  is  emphasized,  yet 
Pharaoh  evidently  was- much  more  alarmed  by  the  thunder  than 
by  the  hail.  He  exclaimed,  ' '  Entreat  the  Lord  ( for  it  is  enough ) 
that  there  be  no  more  might}'  thunderings  and  hail."    The  reply 

>  Gen.  41 :  14.  =»  Sayce's  Haces  of  the  Old  Testament.  ^  2 :  36. 

*  Ancient  Egyptians,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  326,  327.  ^  Ex.  9 :  18-26.  «  Ex.  9  :  25. 

^  Ex.  9  :  19,  22. 


138  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

of  Moses  was,  "As  soon  as  I  am  gone  out  of  the  city,  I  will 
spread  abroad  my  hands  unto  the  Lord  ;  and  the  thunder  shall 
cease,  neither  shall  there  be  any  more  hail."^  It  is  quite  evident 
that  it  was  the  thunder,  though  harmless,  that  Pharaoh  espe- 
cially feared.  He  mentions  in  his  entreaty  the  mighty  thunder- 
ings  first.  Wh}^  was  this?  Why  was  Pharaoh  more  concerned 
about  the  harmless  thunder  than  about  the  destructive  hail  ?  To 
those  well  acquainted  with  Kgypt  no  explanation  is  needed. 
The  fact  that  rain  and  thunder  are  almost  unknown  in  Egj'pt 
makes  the  whole  matter  plain.  Pharaoh  had  never  heard  thun- 
der, at  least  very  loud  thunder,  before,  and  it  was  very  natural, 
therefore,  that  he  should  be  frightened  more  by  it  than  by  the 
flashing  lightning  and  crushing  hail.  But  the  historian  says 
nothing  about  the  absence  of  thunder  and  hail  from  Egypt,  or 
their  infrequency,  taking  it  for  granted  that  his  readers  will 
understand  all  these  matters.  He  assumes  that  his  readers,  like 
himself,  were  familiar  with  the  climatic  peculiarities  of  the 
country  of  the  Nile. 

3.  Deuteronomy  11:  10,  11:  "For  the  land,  whither  thou 
goest  in  to  possess  it,  is  not  as  the  land  of  Kgypt,  from  whence 
ye  came  out,  where  thou  sowedst  thy  seed,  and  wateredst  it  with 
thy  foot,  as  a  garden  of  herbs :  but  the  land,  whither  5^e  go  to 
possess  it,  is  a  land  of  hills  and  valleys,  and  drinketh  water  of 
the  rain  of  heaven." 

Here  the  Israelites  are  addressed  as  being  familiar  with  the 
facts  referred  to ;  namely,  that  Egypt  was  a  level  plain,  not 
watered  by  showers  from  heaven,  but  irrigated  by  artificial 
means.  These  facts  are  mentioned,  not  as  being  strange  or  new, 
but  as  well  known,  and  as  illustrations  to  show  what  kind  of  a 
country  Canaan  was.  To  the  Israelites  Bgj'pt  is  the  well-known, 
familiar  countr}^  while  Canaan  is  te^n^a  incognita.  This  is  appli- 
cable to  the  Israelites  in  the  time  of  Moses,  but  at  no  subsequent 
time.  It  may  be  objected  that  the  above  passage  purports  to  be 
part  of  an  oral  address  of  INIoses  to  the  people,  and  therefore 
forms  no  part  of  the  Pentateuchal  history.  To  this  it  maj'  be 
replied,  first,  that  one  thing  in  dispute  is  whether  Moses  and  the 
historian  are  the  same  person  ;  and,  second,  that  the  point  which 
we  have  quoted  this  passage  to  prove  is  clearly  presented  in 
many  passages  which  purport  to  have  been  written  by  the  author 
as  historian,  of  which  we  proceed  to  give  further  illustrations. 

1  Ex.  9 :  28,  29. 


ACQUAINTANCE  WITH  EGYPT  I39 

4.  Embalming. 

This  process  of  embalming  is  referred  to  without  explanation, 
as  a  custom  well  known  both  to  the  author  and  also  his  readers. 
"And  Joseph  commanded  his  servants  the  physicians  to  embalm 
his  father:  and  the  phj^sicians  embalmed  Israel."^  The  accu- 
racy of  the  author  in  his  account  of  the  embalming  and  funeral 
of  Jacob  is  very  remarkable,  and  will  be  mentioned  hereafter. 
At  present  we  only  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  embalming 
of  Jacob  and  afterward  that  of  Joseph  ^  are  mentioned  as  things 
well  known.  No  description  or  explanation  is  given.  It  was  to 
the  Hebrews  in  general  a  foreign  custom.  Jacob  and  Joseph 
appear  to  have  been  the  only  Hebrews  that  ever  were  embalmed 
in  the  Egyptian  manner,  j^et  it  is  referred  to  as  if  it  were  just 
as  well  understood  as  burial  itself.  In  striking  contrast  with  this 
is  the  account  of  the  funeral  of  King  Asa:  "And  the}^  buried 
him  in  his  own  sepulchers,  which  he  had  made  for  himself  in 
the  cit}'  of  David,  and  laid  him  in  the  bed  which  was  filled  with 
sweet  odors  and  divers  kinds  of  spices  prepared  by  the  apotheca- 
ries' art;  and  the}'  made  a  very  great  burning  for  him."  ^  The 
burial  of  Asa  was  in  some  respects  unusual,  and  hence  there  is 
a  description  of  it.  The  author  tells  what  the  embalming  in  his 
case  was.  But  it  is  not  so  in  the  account  of  the  embalming  of 
Jacob  and  Joseph.  All  that  the  author  deems  necessary  to  say 
in  their  case  is  that  they  were  embalmed.  Undoubtedly,  the  rea- 
son for  his  not  giving  either  explanation  or  description  is  that 
he  thought  none  was  needed.  These  facts  point  to  the  time  of 
the  exodus.  To  the  Israelites  who  had  lived  in  Eg3'pt  the 
process  of  embalming  was  entirely  familiar  ;  but  this  cannot  be 
said  of  the  Israelites  at  any  subsequent  period. 

5.  The  diseases  prevalent  in  Egj'pt  are  alluded  to  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch as  being  well  known  to  the  Israelites.  "And  the  Lord 
will  take  awa}^  from  thee  all  sickness,  and  will  put  none  of  the 
evil  diseases  of  Egj^pt,  which  thou  knowest,  upon  thee  ;  but  will 
lay  them  upon  all  them  that  hate  thee."*  "The  Lord  will  smite 
thee  with  the  botch  of  Egj^pt,  and  with  the  emerods,  and  with 
the  scab,  and  with  the  itch,  whereof  thou  canst  not  be  healed. "^ 
"Moreover  he  will  bring  upon  thee  all  the  diseases  of  Egypt, 
which  thou  wast  afraid  of;  and  they  shall  cleave  unto  thee."^ 
"If  thou  wilt  diligently  hearken  to  the  voice  of  the  Lord  thy 

1  Gen.  50  :  2.  •  Gen.  50  :  26.  ^  II.  Chr.  10  :  14. 

*  Deut.  7  :  15.  ^Deut.  2S :  27.  «  Deut.  28  :  60. 


I40  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

God,  and  wilt  do  that  which  is  right  in  his  sight,  and  wilt  give 
ear  to  his  commandments,  and  keep  all  his  statutes,  I  will  put 
none  of  these  diseases  upon  thee,  which  I  have  brought  upon  the 
Egyptians  :  for  I  am  the  L^ord  that  healeth  thee."i 

In  all  these  passages  the  Israelites  are  addressed  as  being  well 
acquainted  with  the  nature  and  virulence  of  the  diseases  which 
prevailed  in  Egypt.  They  are  not  informed  as  for  the  first  time 
of  these  diseases,  but  are  simply  reminded  of  what  they  knew 
well  already. 

6.  The  process  of  brick-making  is  referred  to  in  the  same 
way. 

The  use  of  straw  in  making  brick,  unusual  in  other  countries, 
is  mentioned,  but  not  explained.  The  writer  presumes  on  the 
knowledge  of  his  readers.^ 

7.  Cities  and  places  in  Egypt  are  referred  to  as  well  known. 
As  a  general  thing,  cities  and  places  are  mentioned  without 

any  indication  of  their  geographical  position,  and  without  any 
mark  of  identification,  the  author  evidently  assuming  that  none 
was  needed.  Where  the  land  of  Goshen  was  we  are  not  in- 
formed, except  that  it  seems  to  be  identified  with  the  land  of 
Rameses.  It  is  a  matter  of  inference  that  it  was  in  the  eastern 
part  of  Egypt,  as  indicated  in  the  account  of  the  journey  of 
Jacob  and  his  family.  =*  The  writer  evidently  took  it  for  granted 
that  his  readers  needed  no  information  in  regard  to  Goshen. 
The  residence  of  the  Egyptian  king  is  never  once  mentioned. 
What  the  capital  city  of  Egypt  was  is  nowhere  stated.  The  city 
of  On  is  mentioned,  but  no  information  is  given  concerning  it. 
The  river  is  mentioned  repeatedly,  but  no  name  given.  Pithom 
and  Rameses  are  mentioned,  but  no  further  information  given 
concerning  them  than  that  they  were  treasure  cities,  built  by  the 
Hebrews.  Everywhere  the  writer  assumes  that  his  readers  knew 
all  about  the  geography  of  Egypt.  But  as  soon  as  he  begins  to 
speak  of  towns  and  places  but  a  little  distance  from  Egypt  and 
Goshen,  he  particularizes,  describes,  and  identifies.  The  first 
record  of  the  march  out  of  Egypt  is  as  follows  :  "And  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  journeyed  from  Rameses  to  Succoth."*  Succoth 
is  another  name  for  Pithom,^  a  fact  for  the  knowledge  of  which 
we  are  indebted  to  antiquarians  and  excavators.  But  the  writer 
assumes  that  those  for  whom  he  especially  wrote  needed  no  in- 

1  Ex.  15  :  26.  2  Ex.  5  :  6-19.  ^  Gen.  46  :  28,  29  ;  47  :  11. 

*Ex.  12  :  37.  *Sayce,  Fresh  Light  from  the  Monuments,  p.  60. 


ACQUAINTANCE  WITH    EGYPT  I4I 

formation  concerning  the  identity  and  the  geographical  position 
of  these  cities.  The  second  record  of  the  march  is  as  follows : 
"And  they  took  their  journe}^  from  Succoth,  and  encamped  in 
Etham,  in  the  edge  of  the  wilderness.  "^  Here  the  author  gives 
information  about  the  position  of  the  last-named  place.  In  the 
third  record  of  the  march  the  geography  of  the  places  mentioned 
is  indicated  with  much  particularity  :  ' '  Speak  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  that  the}^  turn  and  encamp  before  Pi-hahiroth,  between 
Migdol  and  the  sea,  over  against  Baal-zephon :  before  it  shall  ye 
encamp  by  the  sea."^  This  particularization  begins  just  as  soon 
as  the  Israelites  are  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  It  is  very  notice- 
able in  the  references  to  places  in  Palestine  as  well  before  as  after 
the  exodus.  "And  Abram  passed  through  the  land  unto  the 
place  of  Sicheni,  unto  the  plain  of  Moreh."^  "And  he  removed 
from  thence  unto  a  mountain  on  the  east  of  Bethel,  and  pitched 
his  tent,  having  Bethel  on  the  west,  and  Hai  on  the  east."* 
"And  he  went  on  his  journey's  from  the  south  even  to  Bethel, 
unto  the  place  where  his  tent  had  been  at  the  beginning,  between 
Bethel  and  Hai.''^  "Then  Abram  removed  his  tent,  and  came 
and  dwelt  in  the  plain  of  Mamre,  which  is  in  Hebron."^  "  Kir- 
jath-arba;  the  same  is  Hebron  in  the  land  of  Canaan."''  "  And 
the  field  of  Ephron,  which  was  in  Machpelah,  which  was  before 
Mamre.  "^  "And  Jacob  came  unto  Isaac  his  father  unto  Mamre, 
unto  the  city  of  Arba,  which  is  Hebron,  where  Abraham  and 
Isaac  sojourned. "3  "And  they  [the  spies]  ascended  by  the 
south,  and  came  unto  Hebron ;  where  Ahiman,  Sheshai,  and 
Talmai,  the  children  of  Anak,  were.  (Now  Hebron  was  built 
seven  years  before  Zoan  in  Egypt.)"  10 

A  comparison  of  the  way  in  which  places  in  Egypt  are  referred 
to  in  the  Pentateuch  with  the  way  in  which  places  in  Palestine 
are  described  and  identified,  certainly  indicates  that  the  former 
were  well  known,  the  latter  unknown — at  least  not  so  well 
known.  In  regard  to  the  latter  the  author  assumes  that  his 
readers  need  information,  and  he  embraces  everj'  opportunity^  to 
give  it  to  them.  These  facts  are  explained  by  the  supposition 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  written  in  the  Mosaic  age  for  people 
who  had  lived  in  Egypt,  were  interested  in  Palestine,  and  yet 
were  ignorant  of  its  geography.  These  facts  are  accounted  for 
in  no  other  way.     But  how  could  a  writer  who  had  never  been 

lEx.  13:20.       «Ex.  14:2.       ^Gen.  12:6.       *Gen.  12:8.  "Gen.  13:3. 

« Gen.  13:18.     'Gen.  23:  2.     » Gen.  23:17.      "Gen.  35:27.       10 Num.  13:22. 


142  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

in  Palestine  be  so  well  acquainted  with  its  geography  ?  To  say- 
nothing  about  supernatural  inspiration,  Moses  had  abundant 
opportunity  of  acquiring  such  information  at  the  court  of  Pha- 
raoh. There  was  a  long  war  between  Egypt  and  Canaan  imme- 
diately preceding  the  exodus  and  during  the  reign  of  Rameses 
II.,  the  Pharaoh  of  the  oppression.  ^  Reports  of  military  men 
and  travelers  brought  information  to  the  Egyptian  court  con- 
cerning cities  and  places  in  Palestine.^  From  the  Karnak 
inscriptions,  the  Tel-el- Amarna  tablets,  and  other  sources  of 
information,  it  is  in  evidence  that  in  the  age  preceding  the 
exodus  the  cities  and  towns  of  Palestine  were  well  known  to 
the  ruling  class  in  Egypt.  Jerusalem,  Hebron,  Salem,  Gibeon, 
and  nearly  all  the  geographical  names  with  which  we  are  so 
familiar  are  mentioned  in  the  lately  exhumed  Egyptian  monu- 
ments. ^  Palestine  was  indeed  an  Egyptian  province,  governed 
by  the  deputies  of  Pharaoh.'*  Now,  Moses,  brought  up  in  the 
court  of  Pharaoh  and  associating  with  the  ruling  class,  would 
of  course  acquire  the  current  information  concerning  the  topog- 
raphy of  Palestine.  All  these  facts  point  to  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch  as  one  familiar  with  the  topography  of  Egypt, 
knowing,  indeed,  the  topography  of  Palestine,  but  not  so  familiar 
with  it,  and  writing  for  people  who  knew  all  about  Egypt,  but 
who  needed  instruction  concerning  places  in  Palestine.  But  for 
preconceived  views  and  theories  these  considerations  would 
doubtless  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Pentateuch  was  written 
in  the  Mosaic  age  and  by  Moses  himself. 

» Sayce's  Tlie  Hittites,  pp.  24-39. 

*  Sayce's  Fresh  Light  from  the  Monuments,  pp.  57,  58. 

3  Brugsch-Bey,  Egypt  Under  the  Pharaohs,  ch.  13 ;  Sayce,  Fresh  lAght  from 
the  Monuments,  ch.  3. 

*  Sayce,  Baces  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  101, 102. 


CHAPTER  VI 

SCIENTIFIC  ACCURACY 

The  opponents  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch 
maintain  that  it  is  characterized  by  inaccuracies  and  errors,  and 
that,  therefore,  it  cannot  be  the  production  of  Moses.  In  using 
this  argument  they  seem  to  be  almost  ready  to  assert  his  infal- 
libility. At  least,  much  of  their  reasoning  on  this  point  is 
irrelevant,  except  on  the  hypothesis  that  he  was  divinely  and 
plenarily  inspired.  We  now,  however,  take  up  the  argument 
drawn  from  the  accuracy  of  the  Pentateuch  in  favor  of  its  Mosaic 
authorship.  We  do  not  insist  that  the  books  which  compose  it, 
as  we  now  have  them,  are  free  from  error ;  but  we  maintain  that 
these  books  are  characterized  by  an  accuracy  far  above  all  other 
ancient  books, —  an  accuracy,  indeed,  that  indicates  that  the 
author  was  guided  by  superhuman  wisdom.  This  proposition,  if 
established,  will  carry  conviction  to  most  minds  that  God  and 
Moses  were  the  authors  of  these  books,  as  mankind  have  so  long 
believed. 

The  account  of  creation  in  Genesis  is  eminently  sober,  truth- 
like, and  accurate.  We  are  not  going  to  attempt  to  demonstrate 
that  it  is  perfectly  accurate.  This  cannot  be  done  in  the  present 
state  of  human  knowledge,  though  we  confidently  expect  science 
to  do  this  hereafter.  But  even  now  it  is  shown  that  the  Mosaic 
account  of  the  creation  in  respect  to  accuracy  is  far  above  every 
other  cosmogony.  The  Mosaic  cosmogony  is,  indeed,  the  only 
one  that  any  intelligent  man  believes,  or  can  believe.  It  is 
admired  even  by  skeptical  scientists  for  its  remarkable  accuracy 
and  its  deep  insight  into  nature.  In  proof  that  it  is  thus  admired, 
we  quote  the  German  scientist  Haeckel,  as  follows  : 

"The  Mosaic  history  of  creation,  since  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  it  forms  the  introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  has 
enjoyed,  down  to  the  present  day,  general  recognition  in  the 
whole  Jewish  and  Christian  world  of  civilization.  Its  extraor- 
dinary success  is  explained,  not  only  by  its  close  connection  with 

143 


144  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

Jewish  and  Christian  doctrines,  but  also  by  the  simple  and  nat- 
ural chain  of  ideas  which  runs  through  it,  and  which  contrasts 
favorably  with  the  confused  mythology  of  creation  current  among 
most  of  the  other  ancient  nations.  First,  the  Lord  God  creates 
the  earth  as  an  inorganic  body  ;  then  he  separates  light  from  dark- 
ness, then  water  from  the  dry  land.  Now  the  earth  has  become 
inhabitable  for  organisms,  and  plants  are  first  created,  animals 
later,  and  among  the  latter  the  inhabitants  of  the  water  and  the 
air  first,  afterwards  the  inhabitants  of  the  dry  land.  Finally, 
God  creates  man,  the  last  of  all  organisms,  in  his  own  image 
and  as  the  ruler  of  the  earth. 

"Two  great  and  fundamental  ideas,  common  also  to  the  non- 
miraculous  theory  of  development,  meet  us  in  this  Mosaic 
hypothesis  of  creation  with  surprising  clearness  and  simplicity 
— the  idea  of  separation  or  diffej^entiation,  and  the  idea  of  pro- 
gressive development  or  perfecting.  Although  Moses  looks  upon 
the  results  of  the  great  laws  of  organic  development  (which  we 
shall  later  point  out  as  the  necessary  conclusions  of  the  doctrine 
of  descent)  as  the  direct  actions  of  a  constructing  Creator,  yet 
in  his  theory  there  lies  hidden  the  ruling  idea  of  a  progressive 
development  and  a  differentiation  of  the  originally  simple  matter. 
We  can,  therefore,  bestow  our  just  and  sincere  admiration  on  the 
Jewish  law-giver's  grand  insight  into  nature  and  his  simple  and 
natural  hypothesis  of  creation  without  discovering  in  it  a  so- 
called  'divine  revelation.'  That  it  cannot  be  such,  is  clear  from 
the  fact  that  two  great  fundamental  errors  are  asserted  in  it, 
namely:  first,  the  geocentric  error  that  the  earth  is  the  fixed 
central  point  of  the  whole  universe,  round  which  the  sun,  moon, 
and  stars  move ;  and,  secondly,  the  anthropocentric  error  that 
man  is  the  premeditated  aim  of  the  creation  of  the  earth,  for 
whose  service  alone  all  the  rest  of  nature  is  said  to  have  been 
created."^ 

In  regard  to  the  two  errors  thus  charged  on  Moses,  we  remark : 
( I )  That  the  geoce?itric  theory  is  not  contained  in  his  account  of 
creation.  There  is  not  a  word  in  it  about  the  sun,  moon,  and 
stars  moving  round  the  earth.  (2)  He  does,  however,  set  forth 
the  anthropocentric  idea,  and  is  justified  by  the  facts.  Man  is 
master  of  all  the  lower  animals  and  the  subduer  of  the  earth.  He 
is  pressing  the  elements  and  forces  of  nature  more  and  more 

1  Professor  Haeckel's  History  of  Creation  ( Lankester's  translation ),  Vol.  I., 
pp.  37, 38. 


SCIENTIFIC  ACCURACY  I45 

into  his  service.  If  the  earth  and  nature  were  not  made  for 
man,  he  is  an  egregious  usurper.  The  anthropocentric  theory  is 
true,  and  Moses  is  right,  notwithstanding  Haeckel's  assumption 
to  the  contrar3\  It  is  not  strange  that  this  skeptical  scientist 
should  endeavor  to  counteract  his  own  commendation  of  the 
Mosaic  cosmogony  as  a  testimony  to  its  divine  inspiration  ;  for 
it  is  highly  improbable,  scarcely  credible  indeed,  that  any  merely 
human  author  in  ancient  times  should  conceive  and  indite  so 
admirable  an  account  of  creation  as  our  skeptical  professor 
admits  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  to  be— "simple  and  natural 
chain  of  ideas  "  ;  "  surprising  clearness  and  simplicity  "  ;  "  grand 
insight  into  nature "  ;  "  simple  and  natural  hypothesis  of  cre- 
ation"; "contrasts  favorably  with  the  confused  mythology  of 
creation  current  among  most  of  the  other  ancient  nations ' ' ; 
commanding  the  "just  and  sincere  admiration"  of  the  skeptical 
scientist,  and,  above  all,  so  remarkably  harmonious,  as  is  admit- 
ted, with  the  teachings  of  modern  science. 

The  Mosaic  account  of  creation  embraces  the  following  points, 
accepted  by  modern  scientists  : 

1.  That  the  heavens  and  the  earth — all  things,  nature,  the 
universe,  had  a  beginning. 

2.  That  nature,  the  creation,  is  a  consistent  whole. 

3.  The  existence  of  things  at  first  in  a  state  of  chaos,  in  which 
there  was  neither  light  nor  life. 

4.  That  the  bringing  of  the  chaotic  materials  into  a  state  of 
order  and  beauty  was  a  progressive  work. 

5.  The  existence  of  light  independent  of  the  sun. 

6.  The  formation  of  continents  by  the  emergence  of  land  from 
the  water. 

7.  The  existence  of  vegetable  before  animal  life. 

8.  That  the  seas  swarmed  with  life  before  land  animals  ap- 
peared. 

9.  That  fishes,  birds,  beasts,  and  reptiles  all  appeared  on  the 
earth  before  the  creation  of  man. 

10.  That  man  appeared  as  the  head  and  master  of  all  the 
lower  animals. 

These  and  other  scientific  truths  are  crowded  into  one  short 
chapter.  That  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  like  the  decalogue  and 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  for  brevity  and  comprehensiveness, 
is  unparalleled  by  anything  outside  of  the  Bible.  Though  its 
aim,  like  that  of  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  the  whole 
10 


146  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP   OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

Bible,  is  not  to  teach  science,  but  religion  and  morality,  yet  here 
we  have  more  scientific  truth  presented,  in  an  unscientific  way, 
than  can  be  found  within  the  same  space  anywhere  else ;  and  so 
accurate  is  the  whole  presentation,  so  conformed  to  all  that 
modern  science  has  discovered  and  demonstrated,  that  the  only 
way  the  skeptical  German  professor  has  of  meeting  the  argu- 
ment derived  from  it  in  favor  of  supernatural  inspiration  is  to 
charge  upon  it  the  geocentric  and  anthropocentric  doctrines,  the 
latter  of  which,  however,  it  teaches  correctly,  and  the  former  of 
which  it  does  not  teach  at  all. 

Now,  how  did  the  Hebrew  cosmogonist  learn  all  these  scientific 
truths  ?  How  was  he  enabled  to  describe  so  accurately  the  pro- 
gressive series  of  gradations  in  the  world's  formation  as  to  strike 
the  modern  scientist  with  surprise  and  admiration  ?  Whence  all 
this  scientific  knowledge  in  the  author  of  Genesis,  when  there 
was  no  scientific  knowledge  anywhere  else  ? 

It  is  noticeable,  further,  that  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
reveals  profound  knowledge  and  insight  at  the  very  points  about 
which  science  knows  nothing  and  has  nothing  to  say.  One  of  these 
is  the  origin  of  matter — the  elements  of  which  things  are  com- 
posed. Science  maintains  that  no  particle  of  matter  ever  ceases 
to  exist,  but  knows  nothing  and  says  nothing  as  to  how  parti- 
cles of  matter  came  into  existence.  But  here  Genesis  comes  in 
and  declares  that  God  created  them  —  created  all  things  in  the 
beginning.  Science  cannot  tell  how  life  began  on  the  earth.  It 
teaches  that  the  earth  was  at  one  time  red-hot,  and  afterward 
cooled  so  as  to  render  life  on  it  possible.  But  how  did  living 
things  begin?  Spontaneous  generation  has  been  demonstrated 
to  be  an  unscientific  dogma.  Life  on  our  earth  comes  only  from 
life.  Then,  when  there  was  no  living  thing  on  earth,  not  even  a 
seed,  how  could  life  originate?  Science  is  again  struck  dumb; 
but  Genesis  answers  by  declaring  that  plants  grew  out  of  the 
earth  at  the  creative  fiat  of  the  living  God.  But  how  did  the 
animals  originate?  Did  some  of  the  plants  develop  into  ani- 
mals, and  thus  furnish  a  starting-point  for  the  animal  species  ? 
To  this  question  science  gives  no  answer.  Scientists,  many  of 
them,  probably  most  of  them,  do  indeed  accept  the  hypothesis 
that  species  have  been  derived  from  species  —  the  higher  from 
the  lower,  and  the  lower  from  the  lowest.  But  whence  the  low- 
est species  ?  The  Darwinian  theory  is,  that  all  existing  species 
have  been  derived  from  a  few  primordial  forms ;  probably  from 


SCIENTIFIC   ACCURACY  I47 

one.  ^  But  no  account  is  given  of  the  origin  of  those  few  pri- 
mordial forms,  or  that  one  primordial  form  from  which  all 
existing  species  are  supposed  to  have  descended.  If  a  primor- 
dial form  were  mere  dead  matter,  no  living  thing  could  be  derived 
from  it.  If  it  were  a  livmg  form,  whence  came  it.-*  To  account 
for  the  origin  of  animal  life  science  and  scientists  have  nothing 
to  propose,  unless  it  be  the  exploded  and  discredited  dogma  of 
spontaneous  generation  ;  but  the  author  of  Genesis  bridges  the 
chasm  between  dead  matter  and  animal  life  by  declaring  that 
living  creatures  were  produced  from  the  waters  and  the  earth  by 
the  creative  word  and  power  of  God. 

As  to  the  origin  of  man,  many  of  the  scientists,  as  Darwin 
and  Haeckel,  go  the  whole  figure  and  suppose  that  mankind,  as 
well  as  all  other  species  of  animals,  have  been  derived  from  other 
species — that  among  the  ancestors  of  man  are  to  be  included  the 
monkey  and  the  oyster.  But  this  hypothesis  has  its  difficulties, 
and  even  Darwin  declared,  "  I  can  never  reflect  on  them  without 
being  staggered. ' '  ^  Other  scientists  have  been  repelled  by  difii- 
culties  other  than  those  which  made  Darwin  stagger.  Professor 
Max  Miiller  has  said  that  "it  is  inconceivable  that  any  known 
animal  could  ever  develop  language, "^  and  that  "language  is 
our  Rubicon,  and  no  brute  will  dare  to  cross  it."*  Professor 
Mivart,  whom  Huxley  declared  to  be  a  man  of  "acknowledged 
scientific  competence,  "^  has  declared  the  Darwinian  conception 
of  man's  origin  to  be  "utterly  irrational"  and  "a  puerile  hy- 
pothesis," and  has  declared  that  "no  arguments  have  been 
adduced  to  make  probable  man's  origin  from  speechless,  irra- 
tional, non-moral  brutes. ' '  ^  Professor  Virchow,  of  Germany,  has 
said  that,  according  to  the  evidence,  ' '  an  ape  can  never  become  a 
man,"  and  that  "facts  seem  to  teach  the  invariability  of  the 
human  species."^  Alfred  R.  Wallace,  the  simultaneous  origina- 
tor, with  Darwin,  of  the  Darwinian  theory,  maintains  that 
"natural  selection"  is  not  sufficient  to  account  for  man's  origin, 
and  that  his  large  brain,  his  voice,  and  his  mental  and  moral 
powers  must  have  been  developed  through  the  guidance  of  a 
higher  power  and  intelligence.  ^     Many  similar  declarations  of 

>  Darwin's  Origin  of  Species,  p.  419.  '  Origin  of  Species,  p.  154. 

3  Lecture,  Eclectic  Magazine,  July,  1873,  p.  154. 

*  Science  of  Language,  First  Series,  p.  354.       »  Critiques  and  Addresses,  p.  219. 

«  Genesis  of  Species,  p.  300  ;  Lessons  from  Nature,  pp.  180,  185,  186. 

^  Cranium  of  the  Man  and  Ape,  in  Popular  Science. 

^  Action  of  Natural  Selection  on  Man. 


148  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OI^   THE    PENTATEUCH 

distinguished  scientists  might  be  quoted.  Then,  there  is  the 
difficulty  about  "the  missing  link."  It  is  admitted  that  there  is 
a  wide  gap  between  man  and  the  catarrhine  (perpendicular- 
nosed)  monkeys,  that  are  claimed  by  Darwin  ^  and  HaeckeP  to 
be  the  nearest  known  human  progenitors.  A  single  link  seems 
insufficient  to  bridge  so  wide  a  chasm.  But  not  a  trace  of  the 
ape-like  man  has  been  found,  and  the  chasm  is  without  even  the 
semblance  of  a  bridge.  Besides,  the  distinguished  scientist  Sir 
John  lyubbock  maintains,  and  has  succeeded  in  proving,  that 
the  ant,  of  which  there  are  about  a  thousand  species,  ranks  next 
to  man  in  the  scale  of  intelligence,  and  that  the  anthropoid  apes 
approach  neafer  to  him  only  in  bodily  structure.^  It  is  clear, 
then,  that  the  tiny  race  must  be  admitted  somewhere  between  the 
monkey  and  the  man.  But,  then,  how  shall  the  gap  between  the 
crawling  ant  and  the  God-like  man  be  filled  ?  Science,  or  rather 
the  scientists,  have  been  struggling  with  this  problem  in  vain. 
The  author  of  Genesis,  however,  solved  it  long  ago  by  repre- 
senting the  origin  of  man  to  be  different  from  that  of  other 
species — his  body,  indeed,  to  have  been  produced  by  derivative 
creation  from  the  earth,  but  his  soul  coming  directly,  like  a 
breath,  from  the  Almighty.** 

Thus,  at  the  very  points  where  science  has  nothing  to  say,  and 
where  scientists  are  dumb  or  weary  themselves  to  no  purpose, 
staggering  under  difficulties  and  perhaps  calling  each  other's 
views  irrational  and  puerile,  or  at  best  insufficient,  the  Mosaic 
cosmogony  declares  that  God's  creative  power  intervened  and 
operated.  Thus  the  silence  of  science  on  these  points  is  justi- 
fied, since  it  is  not  its  business,  but  that  of  theology,  to  trace 
effects  to  the  great  First  Cause.  But  how  did  the  ancient  author 
know  the  points  beyond  which  science  could  not  go,  and  in  the 
presence  of  which  scientists  would  be  silent,  or  only  differ  and 
wrangle  ?  Whence  the  knowledge  and  foresight  that  led  him  to 
locate  the  intervention  of  creative  power  at  the  origin  of  things, 
in  the  beginning,  at  the  origin  of  life,  and  the  origin  of  man's 
soul,  and  at  the  same  time  to  set  forth  an  orderly  and  progres- 
sive gradation  in  cosmic  arrangements,  so  exactly  conformed  to 
all  that  science  teaches  on  the  subject?  Haeckel,  as  we  have 
shown,  speaks  of  "the  Jewish  lawgiver's  grand  insight  into 
nature,"  and  expresses  his  profound  admiration  for  it.     But  this 

^Darwin's  Descent  of  Man,  pp.  153-157. 

2  Haeckel's  History  of  Creation,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  270-274. 

3  Ants,  Bees,  and  Wasps,  p.  1.  •*  Gen.  2:7. 


SCIENTIFIC  ACCURACY  I49 

grand  insight  is  a  fact  that  must  be  accounted  for  in  some  way. 
May  it  not  be  that  Moses  was  divinely  inspired  and  that  his 
"grand  insight  into  nature"  came  as  a  special  gift  from  God? 
The  possibility,  probability,  or  certainty  that  there  is  a  super- 
natural element  in  Genesis  and  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch 
may  be  legitimately  employed  as  an  argument  in  favor  of  the 
Mosaic  authorship.  For  if  divine  inspiration,  or,  in  other 
words,  if  God  Almighty  had  anything  to  do  in  the  production 
of  these  books,  the  views  of  the  anti-Mosaic  critics  must  cer- 
tainly be  abandoned ;  for  assuredly  inspired  communications 
from  heaven  would  not  be  embodied  in  frauds,  fictions,  and  his- 
torical misrepresentations  and  perversions. 

We  have  called  attention  to  the  profound  insight  into  nature 
brought  to  view  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  to  the 
remarkable  and  admitted  conformity  of  its  declarations  to  the 
teachings  of  modern  science.  It  may  be  said  that  the  author  of 
Genesis  merely  recorded  in  the  first  chapter  some  old  tradition 
current  among  the  people  in  the  region  of  the  Euphrates.  It  is 
indeed  very  probable,  even  certain,  that  Abram  took  traditions 
with  him  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  and  possibly  traditions  in 
written  form  ;  for,  according  to  the  chronology,  he  was  contem- 
porary with  Noah  for  more  than  fift}^  years,  Noah  was  contempo- 
rary with  Methuselah,  who  died  the  year  of  the  flood,  about  six 
hundred  years,  and  Methuselah  was  contemporary  wnth  Adam 
two  hundred  and  forty-three  years.  Thus  Adam  could  instruct 
Methuselah  and  his  generation  two  hundred  and  forty-three 
years;  Methuselah  had  six  hundred  years  to  transmit  all  that 
he  had  learned  from  Adam,  and  what  he  had  found  out  for  him- 
self, to  Noah  and  his  generation,  and  about  one  hundred  years 
to  instruct  Shem  and  his  generation  ;  Noah  had  about  fifty  years 
and  Shem  more  than  two  hundred  years  to  impart  all  their  stores 
of  knowledge  to  Abram  and  his  generation. 

It  is  thus  suggested  that  all  that  Adam  knew  about  the 
creation  of  the  world  and  of  himself  and  also  about  the  garden  of 
Eden  and  the  fall,  and  all  that  Noah  knew  about  the  flood,  may 
have  been  transmitted  to  Abraham  and  his  descendants.  Adam 
could  have  had  no  traditions  concerning  the  creation,  and  what- 
ever knowledge  he  and  the  ancient  races  possessed  on  this  subject 
must  have  come  originally  as  a  special  gift  from  God.  For  in 
primitive  times,  when  science  was  unknown,  the  knowledge  of 
the  origin  of  the  world  and  of  plants  and  animals  must  have 


150  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

been  imparted  by  the  Almightj^  in  some  special  way,  or  have 
been  the  result  of  mere  conjecture.  Will  the  ground  be  taken 
that  the  Mosaic  cosmogony,  so  sober,  so  truth-like,  and  so  con- 
formed to  all  that  science  has  yet  been  able  to  discover,  is  mere 
guesswork,  the  creation  of  fancj'  in  an  unscientific  and  unen- 
lightened age? 

We  again  remind  the  reader  that  we  are  not  now  maintaining 
that  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation  is  perfectly  accurate  in  a 
scientific  sense.  This  cannot  now  be  conclusively  established, 
though  its  scientific  accuracy  is  becoming  more  and  more  a 
matter  of  demonstration.  The  skeptical  scientist  from  whom 
we  have  above  quoted  declares  that  ' '  the  authority  of  the  Mosaic 
history  as  an  absolutely  perfect,  divine  revelation  was  destroyed ' ' 
by  the  demonstration  of  the  Copernican  theory.  As  we  have 
already  said,  the  Mosaic  books  do  not  approve  the  geocentric 
error,  though  they  do  indeed  speak  of  the  rising  and  the  setting 
of  the  sun,  and  of  the  apparent  motion  of  the  heavenly  bodies 
in  general,  just  as  do  all  mankind,  including  astronomers  and 
all  other  scientists. 

But  the  conformity  of  the  cosmogony  in  Genesis  to  truth  and 
fact,  as  evinced  more  and  more  by  advancing  science,  to  the 
surprise  and  admiration  even  of  skeptics,  instead  of  being 
accounted  for,  is  rendered  more  striking,  by  comparison  with  cos- 
mogonies preserved  in  Babylonian  and  other  traditions.  The 
cosmogonies  of  the  ancient  nations  in  general  are  confused  and 
absurd.  Not  one  of  them  has  been,  or  can  be,  accepted  by 
enlightened  people. 

The  Babylonian  account  of  creation  is  perhaps  the  most 
worthy  of  being  compared  with  that  of  Genesis.  It  is  supposed 
to  have  been  current  among  the  dwellers  along  the  Euphrates 
2000  B.C.,  though  copied  on  the  tablets  of  Asurbanipal 
about  700  B.C.  This  cosmogony  is  fragmentary,  confused,  and 
obscure,  yet  in  some  points  is  similar  to  that  of  Genesis.  It 
appears  to  speak  of  six  days  in  creation,  a  time  of  chaos,  the 
original  commingling  of  earth  and  water,  the  production  of 
animal  life  by  supernatural  power,  and  the  placing  of  the  heav- 
enly bodies  in  relation  to  the  earth. ^  This  Chaldaic  account  of 
the  creation  and  that  of  Genesis  very  likely  had  the  same  origin. 
The  similarity  between  them  suggests  that  in  one  sense  they  are 
the  same  story,  the  latter  being  the  original  in  contents  and 

1  George  Smith,  Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis,  pp.  61-100. 


SCIENTIFIC   ACCURACY     ,  I51 

character,  and  the  former  being  the  mutilated  and  corrupt  form 
which  the  story  assumed  when  disfigured  and  obscured  by- 
polytheistic  and  pantheistic  perversions  and  additions.  But  all 
this  leaves  the  origin  of  the  original  story  untouched,  and  even 
makes  the  simplicity,  accurac}^  and  truth  to  nature  retained  in 
the  Mosaic  account  all  the  more  wonderful.  If  this  account  con- 
tains the  information  which  God  imparted  originally  to  mankind 
concerning  the  origin  of  the  world  and  of  man,  why  was  it  not 
disfigured  and  obscured,  shorn  of  its  simplicity,  truth,  and 
grandeur,  and  thus  assimilated  to  all  the  other  cosmogonies  cur- 
rent among  the  ancient  nations  ?  Whence  the  difference?  And 
if  the  hypothesis  of  the  analytic  critics  in  regard  to  a  plurality 
of  Pentateuchal  authors  is  correct,  why  did  not  some  of  these 
numerous  writers,  combiners,  editors,  compilers,  revisers,  inter- 
polators, and  correctors,  who  touched  up  almost  everything  they 
got  their  hands  on,  not  alter  and  mar  this  grand  old  story  of  the 
creation  ? 

But  there  are  other  illustrations  of  the  scientific  accuracy  of 
the  Pentateuch.  The  unity  of  the  human  race  is  now  an 
admitted  fact.  The  teaching  of  Genesis  on  the  oneness  of 
the  human  race  was  formerly  called  in  question.  But  by  the 
aid  of  chemistry,  physiology,  philology,  ethnology,  and  his- 
tory this  truth  has  been  triumphantly  established,  and  is 
accepted  by  scientists  and  enlightened  people  in  general.  On 
this  subject  Genesis  was  for  a  long  time  in  advance  of  the 
scientists.  The  original  sameness  of  human  speech  is  another 
subject  in  regard  to  which  the  accuracy  of  Genesis  has  been 
fully  vindicated.  We  say  nothing  just  now  in  regard  to  the  story 
of  Babel.  But  we  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  what  that  story 
teaches  as  to  the  original  sameness  of  human  speech,  the  com- 
mon origin  of  languages,  and  the  relationship  between  them 
has  been  in  very  modern  times  established  as  scientific  truth. 
The  presumption  seemed  for  a  long  time  to  be  against  these 
truths  as  well  as  against  the  unity  and  universal  brotherhood  of 
men.  But  after  much  investigation  and  conflict,  these  truths 
have  been  fully  established  and  are  generally  accepted.  This 
fact  is  an  illustration  of  the  scientific  accuracy  of  the  author  of 
Genesis,  and  furnishes  evidence  that  he  was  guided  by  more 
than  human  wisdom. 


CHAPTER  VII 

HISTORICAL  INTEGRITY 

Opponents  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  have 
called  its  historical  character  in  question.  One  of  their  argu- 
ments is  that  the  Pentateuch  is  not  true,  and,  therefore,  Moses 
did  not  write  it.  If  the  argument  is  valid,  it  disproves  divine 
inspiration ;  for  if  an  untrustworthy  book  is  not  to  be  ascribed 
to  Moses,  much  less  is  such  a  book  to  be  ascribed  to  God. 

We  maintain,  however,  that  the  Pentateuchal  history  is  true, 
and,  therefore,  the  books  containing  it  are  divinely  inspired,  and 
that  they  were  written  by  Moses.  Of  course,  the  mere  truthful- 
ness of  a  book  does  not  prove  that  it  was  divinely  inspired,  nor 
that  it  was  written  by  the  author  to  whom  it  is  ascribed.  But 
if  the  Pentateuchal  history  is  trustworthy,  there  is  reason  to 
believe  that  God  had  something  to  do  in  the  production  of  the 
books  which  contain  it,  and  that  they  were  written  by  Moses,  or 
at  least  that  they  were  not  gotten  up  by  a  host  of  nameless 
writers,  as  claimed  by  the  analysts.  We  do  not  claim  that  every 
historical  statement  contained  in  the  Pentateuch  can  be  proved 
to  be  true  by  external  testimony.  We  claim,  however,  that  its 
principal  statements — even  those  that  have  been  objected  to  the 
most— can  be  thus  substantiated.  Much  has  been  done  to  vin- 
dicate the  historical  accuracy  and  truthfulness  of  the  Pentateuch 
by  the  discoveries  of  antiquarian  research,  and  the  work  is  still 
going  on.  New  discoveries  are  being  made  almost  continually. 
The  result  of  every  fresh  discovery  that  bears  on  the  question  is 
to  demonstrate,  or  to  render  probable,  some  statement  in  the 
Pentateuchal  history.  Every  difficulty  and  all  possible  doubts 
have  not  as  yet  been  removed ;  but,  judging  by  what  has  already 
been  accomplished,  we  have  reason  to  believe  that,  ere  long,  the 
discoveries  of  the  Egyptologists  and  other  archaeologists,  together 
with  what  is  known  from  history  and  tradition,  wnll  have  con- 
vinced all,  except  stubborn  doubters,  that  the  Pentateuch  is 
entirely  trustworthy  as  a  book  of  history. 

I.     Genesis  does  not  very  definitely  fix  the  place  of  man's 

152 


HISTORICAL,  INTEGRITY  153 

origin,  but  by  implication  it  was  near  the  garden  of  Eden,  the 
place  of  his  earliest  residence.  This  is  placed  by  the  record 
"eastward  in  Eden,"  somewhere  in  the  region  of  the  Euphrates.^ 
This  account  of  the  place  of  man's  origin  has  not,  indeed,  been 
universally  accepted.  Darwin  was  disposed  to  place  "the  cradle 
of  the  human  race ' '  in  Africa,  for  the  reason  that  the  catarrhine 
monkeys,  from  which  he  supposed  men  to  be  descended,  had 
their  early  home  in  that  continent.^  Haeckel,  though  agreeing 
with  Darwin  in  holding  that  "man  has  developed  out  of 
the  Catarrhini'''  suggests  that  the  primeval  home  of  the  human 
race  was  in  Lemuria,  an  imaginary  continent  connecting  Asia 
and  Africa,  supposed  to  be  now  lying  under  the  Indian  Ocean, 
but  formerly  inhabited  by  lycmurian  apes.^  But  history,  tradi- 
tion, and  current  opinion  point  to  Asia  as  the  original  home  of 
mankind.  The  region  of  the  Euphrates  evidently  was  the  home 
of  the  earliest  civilization  and  presumably  of  primitive  men. 
As  investigation  goes  on,  this  opinion  receives  additional  con- 
firmation, and  is  now  generally  accepted  by  mythologists, 
philologists,  historians,  antiquarians,  and  ethnographers.  Thus 
the  evidence  is  shown  to  preponderate  in  favor  of  the  Mosaic 
account  of  the  place  of  man's  origin,  early  home,  and  geograph- 
ical distribution. 

2.  The  Mosaic  account  of  man's  primitive  condition  also 
receives  confirmation  from  current  tradition.  Lenormant  de- 
clares that  * '  the  idea  of  the  Edenic  happiness  of  the  first  human 
beings  constitutes  one  of  the  universal  traditions,"*  and  that 
belief  in  a  primeval  age  of  human  innocence  and  happiness 
prevailed  not  only  among  the  Semitic  races,  but  among  the 
Aryans,  as  well,  Chaldeans,  Assyrians,  Egyptians,  Persians, 
Indians,  Greeks,  and  ancient  nations  in  general.  Little  need  be 
said  on  this  point,  inasmuch  as  the  primeval  state  of  innocence 
and  happiness  is  presupposed  by  the  subject  to  which  we  shall 
immediately  advert. 

3.  The  fall  of  man  into  a  state  of  sin  and  suiFering  is  another 
point  in  regard  to  which  the  statements  of  Genesis  are  corrobo- 
rated by  traditions  almost  universally  current  among  mankind. 
Some  of  the  ancient  nations,  as  the  Hindus  and  Greeks,  repre- 
sented the  primeval  state  of  innocence  as  a  golden  age,  and 
these,  of  course,  conceived  of  the  fall  as  an  age  of  declension, 

1  Gen.  2  :  8,  14.  ^Descent  of  Man,  p.  1.55. 

3  History  of  Creation,  "Vol.  II.,  pp.  326,  400.        *  Beginnings  of  History,  p.  67. 


154  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP   OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

and  as  a  gradual  lapse  from  virtue  and  happiness.  But  more 
generally  the  fall  is  represented  as  a  single  event,  similar  to  the 
eating  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  knowledge,  as  related  in  Gene- 
sis. Of  this  there  are  manj^  examples.  Speaking  of  the  trees 
that  are  represented  in  the  Assj^rian  sculptures,  lyayard  says, 
"The  sacred  tree,  or  tree  of  life,  so  universall}^  recognized  in 
Eastern  systems  of  theology,  is  called  to  mind,  and  we  are 
naturally  led  to  refer  the  traditions-  connected  with  it  to  a  com- 
mon origin."  In  a  foot-note  he  adds,  "We  have  the  tree  of  life 
of  Genesis,  and  the  sacred  tree  of  the  Hindus,  with  its  accom- 
panying figures  —  a  group  almost  identical  with  the  illustrations 
of  the  fall  in  our  old  Bibles."^  Lenormant  remarks  that  this 
emblem  is  presented  on  the  Babylonian  cylinders  as  frequently 
as  in  bas-reliefs  in  the  Assyrian  palaces,  and  says,  "It  is  difficult 
not  to  connect  this  mysterious  plant  with  the  famed  trees  of  life 
and  knowledge  which  play  so  important  a  part  in  the  story  of 
the  first  sin. "2  The  ancient  Persian  tradition  is  suggested  in  the 
Zend-Avesta  by  the  declaration  that  ' ' Agra-mainyus,  who  is  full 
of  death,  in  opposition  to  the  works  of  the  good  God,  created  a 
great  serpent  and  winter,  through  the  agency  of  the  demons."^ 
In  some  of  the  later  parts  of  the  Zend-Avesta,  the  story  of  the 
fall  is  given  with  variations.  Apples,  a  woman,  and  the  author 
of  all  evil  figure  in  the  fall  as  related  in  the  Scandinavian  Edda.  ^ 
The  Greek  traditions  of  Pandora  and  of  the  garden  of  the  Hes- 
perides,  with  its  golden  apples  guarded  by  a  dragon,  may  with 
propriety  be  regarded  as  an  altered  and  variant  story  of  the 
garden  of  Eden  and  of  the  fall. 

4.     The  deluge. 

The  traditions  of  this  event  are  nearly  universal.  They  are 
found  ^mong  all  mankind,  with  the  exception  of  the  black 
races.  ^  Though  perhaps  no  reason  can  be  assigned  why  such 
traditions  are  not  found  among  the  African  races,  the  evidence  is 
none  the  less  strong  for  the  reality  of  the  deluge  than  if  their 
prevalence  were  absolutely  universal.  Without  detailing  the 
traditions  as  prevalent  among  the  Babylonians,  Assyrians,  Hin- 
dus, Persians,  Phrygians,  Greeks,  Scandinavians,  Cherokees, 
Mexicans,  Aztecs,  Toltecs,  and  other  races  and  tribes  in  the  Old 
and  the  New  World,  we  will  call  attention  only  to  that  of  Baby- 
lonia.    Of  this  there  are  two  versions,  one  given  by  Berosus,  a 

*  Nineveh  and  Its  Remains,  p.  356.         ^  Beginnings  of  History,  p.  83.  ] 
3  Vendidad,  1 :  5-8.    (Spiegel's  German  translation,  pp.  HI,  62.) 

*  Beginnings  of  History,  p.  81.  «  Beginnings  0/  History,  p.  382. 


HISTORICAIv  INTEGRITY  I55 

Babylonian,  who  wrote  probably  about  300  B.C.  He  was  the 
priest  of  Bel,  and  in  that  capacity  had  access  (it  is  supposed)  to 
the  public  archives.  The  similarity  between  his  account  of  the 
flood  and  that  contained  in  Genesis  is  very  striking.  Berosus 
relates  that  Xisuthrus  was  divinely  warned  beforehand  of  the 
impending  deluge  and  was  commanded  to  build  a  huge  vessel 
and  to  take  with  him  into  it  his  family  and  friends,  and  also 
every  species  of  land  animals,  together  with  a  sufficient  supply 
of  food.  He  further  relates  that  Xisuthrus  obeyed  the  divine 
command,  built  the  vessel,  and  placed  in  it  his  wife,  childreti, 
and  friends,  who  with  himself  were  alone  of  all  mankind  saved 
from  drowning.  He  states  that  after  the  waters  had  begun  to 
abate  Xisuthrus  sent  out  birds  from  the  ship,  to  ascertain 
whether  the  ground  was  j-et  dry,  and  that  the  ship  finally  landed 
on  a  mountain  in  Armenia,  and  that  the  people  in  that  region 
scraped  off  the  bitumen  for  charms  and  antidotes  to  poison.  ^ 

The  other  Babylonian  account  of  the  deluge,  deciphered  from 
the  cuneiform  tablets  by  the  celebrated  George  Smith,  is  more 
ancient  than  that  of  Berosus.  These  tablets  were  copies  made 
by  Asurbanipal,  the  Assyrian  king,  about  700  B.C.  The 
original  tablets  are  believed  to  date  back  at  least  to  the  seven- 
teenth century  B.C.  They  existed,  therefore,  almost  as  far  back 
as  the  time  of  Abraham.  The  traditions  were,  of  course,  older 
than  the  tablets  on  which  they  were  printed.  This  tablet  account 
harmonizes  still  more  closely  with  Genesis  than  does  that  of 
Berosus.  The  divine  premonition  of  the  deluge  and  the  com- 
mand to  build  the  ark,  or  ship  ;  the  caulking  of  it  with  bitumen 
or  pitch  ;  the  collection  of  the  animals  and  of  the  food ;  the  ad- 
vent of  the  waters ;  the  floating  of  the  vessel ;  the  sending  out  of 
the  birds;  the  landing  on  the  mountain  —  in  all  these  and  in 
some  other  points  there  is  entire  agreement.  ^  There  are  some 
discrepancies.  Genesis  makes  the  dimensions  of  the  ark  to  be 
three  hundred  cubits  in  length,  fifty  in  breadth,  and  thirty  in 
height.  The  tablets  make  it  six  hundred  cubits  long,  sixty 
cubits  broad,  and  sixty  high;  according  to  Berosus,  it  was  five 
stadia  long  (five-eighths  of  a  mile)  and  two  stadia  (or  a  quarter 
of  a  mile)  wide,  height  not  given.  The  tablet  account  states 
that  the  deluge  culminated  in  seven  days  ;  Genesis,  in  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty.     Berosus  states  that  three  birds  were  sent  out  of 

1  Cory's  Ancient  Fragments,  pp.  56-63. 

'Smith's  Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis,  pp.  263-294  ;  Leuormant's  Beginnings 
of  History,  pp.  575-588. 


156  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

the  ark,  without  naming  them;  the  tablet  names  them  —  dove, 
swallow,  and  raven ;  and  Genesis  mentions  only  the  raven  and 
the  dove,  but  states  that  the  dove  was  sent  out  twice.  Berosus 
mentions  the  landing  of  the  ship  on  a  mountain  in  Armenia  ;  the 
tablets  mention  the  mountain  Nizir  as  the  landing-place ;  and 
Genesis  mentions  the  mountains  of  Ararat.  The  two  Babylonian 
accounts  call  the  builder  of  the  vessel  Xisuthrus  ;  Genesis  calls 
him  Noah.  The  Babylonian  accounts  are  disfigured  with 
polytheistic  notions,  while  of  course  Genesis  recognizes  but 
one  God. 

These  differences,  however,  suggest  that  all  these  accounts 
have  a  common  origin,  and  that  the  one  contained  in  Genesis  is 
the  original  and  true  account.  It  must  have  originated  before 
polytheism  became  prevalent,  if  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  tradi- 
tional at  all,  while  the  polytheistic  corruptions  manifest  in  the 
Babylonian  accounts  mark  them  as  later  variations  of  an  older 
account.  So,  too,  of  the  dimensions  of  the  vessel  as  given  in 
these  three  accounts,  Genesis  making  the  length  three  hundred 
cubits,  the  tablets  making  it  twice  as  great  (six  hundred  cubits, 
nearly  a  quarter  of  a  mile),  and  Berosus  making  it  eleven  times 
greater — five  furlongs  (five-eighths  of  a  mile),  and  two  furlongs 
in  breadth  (a  quarter  of  a  mile).  These  facts  are  just  such  as 
we  should  expect  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  tablet  account  is 
later  than  that  of  Genesis,  and  that  the  account  given  by  Berosus 
is  still  later. 

Thus  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  deluge  is  corroborated  in  all 
its  points  by  the  almost  universally  prevalent  traditions  of  man- 
kind, and  by  traditions  that  are  shown  to  have  been  in  existence 
not  very  long  after  the  time  given  as  that  of  the  deluge  itself. 

5.     The  confusion  of  tongues. 

The  story  of  the  tower  of  Babel  is  also  corroborated  by  tradi- 
tion, but  not  so  fully  as  that  of  the  deluge.  Josephus  quotes  a 
sibylline  tradition,  as  follows:  "When  all  men  were  of  one 
language  and  one  speech,  some  of  them  built  a  high  tower,  as  if 
they  would  thereby  ascend  up  to  heaven  ;  but  the  gods  sent 
storms  of  wind  and  overthrew  the  tower  and  gave  every  one  his 
peculiar  language ;  and  for  this  reason  it  was  that  the  city  was 
called  Babylon."^  Precisely  the  same  tradition  is  given  by 
Abydenus,  as  quoted  by  Busebius:  "They  say  that  the  first 
inhabitants  of  the  earth,  glorying  in  their  own  strength  and  size, 

^  Antiquities,  1:4:3. 


HISTORICAL   INTEGRITY  I57 

and  despising  the  gods,  undertook  to  build  a  tower,  whose  top 
should  reach  the  sky,  upon  that  spot  where  Babylon  now  stands. 
But  when  it  approached  the  heaven,  the  winds  assisted  the  gods 
and  overturned  the  work  upon  its  contrivers  ( its  ruins  are  said 
to  be  at  Babylon),  and  the  gods  introduced  a  diversity  of 
tongues  among  men,  who  till  that  time  had  all  spoken  the  same 
language.  And  a  war  arose  between  Kronos  (that  is,  Saturn) 
and  Titan ;  and  the  place  in  which  they  built  the  tower  is  now 
called  Babylon  on  account  of  the  confusion  of  the  languages  ;  for 
confusion  is  by  the  Hebrews  called  Babel.  "^ 

Besides  these  traditions,  the  account  of  the  building  of  Babel  is 
confirmed  by  a  number  of  facts  and  coincidences.  Centralization 
was  the  aim  of  the  Babel-builders,  and  even  before  their  time 
Sargon,  the  king  of  Accad,  aimed  at  universal  empire.  After 
his  conquest  of  Syria,  "he  appointed  that  all  places  should  form 
a  single  kingdom."  Long  afterward,  in  the  century  before  the 
exodus,  there  was  a  partial  realization  of  this  dream  of  consol- 
idation in  the  prevalence  of  one  literary  language  throughout 
western  Asia.  This  language  was  the  Babylonian,  which,  it 
may  be  added,  was  at  that  time  almost  identical  with  that  of 
Canaan,  called  Hebrew.  The  country  where  the  tower  was  built 
is  one  of  brick  and  bitumen,  not  of  stone.  Correspondingly 
Genesis  states,  "They  had  brick  for  stone,  and  slime  [bitumen] 
had  they  for  mortar."  ^  The  fragment  of  a  tablet  found  by 
George  Smith  tells  "how  small  and  great  mingled  the  holy 
mound  in  Babylon  and  how  the  god  in  anger  destro3"ed  the  secret 
design  of  the  builders  and  made  strange  their  counsel."  * 

6.  The  expedition  of  Chedorlaomer  into  Palestine,  as  related 
in  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  Genesis. 

Saj'ce  claims  that  this  account  has  been  proved  to  be  his- 
torical. He  says,  "Oriental  archaeology  has  vindicated  its 
authenticity  in  a  remarkable  way  and  disproved  the  ingenious 
skepticism  of  a  hasty  criticism."  We  refer  the  reader  to  his 
discussion  of  this  subject.* 

7.  Besides  the  confirmation  of  particular  narratives  as  pre- 
sented above,  the  archaeologists  have  furnished,  and  are  still 
furnishing,  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  Pentateuchal  historj-  in 

*  Cory's  Ancient  Fragments,  p.  55.  '  Gen.  11  :  3. 

=*  Smith's  Cfialdaic  Account  of  Genesis,  p.  160;  Sayce,  Fresh  Light  from  the 
Monuments,  pp.  3.5,  36. 

*  Fresh  Light  from  the  Monuments,  pp.  44-47 ;  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monu- 
ments, pp.  161-169. 


158  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE^    PENTATEUCH 

general.  They  report  nothing  that  contradicts  it,  or  is  in  any 
wa}^  inconsistent  with  it.  Their  discoveries,  so  far  as  they  bear 
on  the  Pentateuchal  history,  demonstrate  either  its  certainty,  or 
probability,  or  possibility.  The  monuments  do  not,  indeed,  fur- 
nish a  biography  of  Abraham,  but  the  site  of  Ur,  his  native 
city,  has  been  discovered,  and  it  is  claimed  that  the  contract- 
tablets  found  there  contain  the  names  of  Abram,  Sarah,  and 
Milcah.  It  is  in  evidence,  too,  that  polytheism  prevailed  in  that 
ancient  city,  as  suggested  in  Joshua  24:  2.  The  archaeologists  do 
not  report  that  they  find  the  name  of  Melchizedek  on  any  of  the 
tablets,  but  they  testify  that  they  find  that  in  the  century  before 
the  exodus  there  reigned  in  Uru-salem  {^city  of  the  god  of  peace^ 
a  priestly  king,  who,  though  subject  to  Pharaoh,  king  of  Egypt, 
was  not  appointed  nor  confirmed  by  his  authority,  but  claimed 
to  rule  by  the  authority  of  the  God-king  on  Mount  Moriah.  ^ 
This  royal  priest,  styled  Bbedtob,  might  well  be  the  successor 
of  Melchizedek,  king  of  Salem,  and  priest  of  the  most  high 
God. 2  The  name  Bethel  {house  of  God)  is  not  given  in  the 
monuments  as  a  place  where  Abraham  or  Jacob  w^orshiped,  but 
they  give  the  significant  names  facob-el  and  foseph-el  as  desig- 
nating places  in  Palestine.^  It  is  in  evidence  that  the  Hyksos 
kings  were  expelled  from  Egypt,  and  were  succeeded  by  a  new 
dynast}"  about  the  time  in  which,  according  to  Exodus,  **  there 
arose  up  a  new  king  over  Egypt,  which  knew  not  Joseph."  *  It 
is  ascertained  that  a  famine,  lasting  many  years,  occurred  during 
the  time  of  the  Hyksos.^  It  is  agreed  among  Egyptologists 
that  Rameses  II.  was  the  Pharaoh  of  the  oppression,  and  his 
son,  Menephtah  II.,  the  Pharaoh  of  the  exodus.^  The  mumm}^ 
of  the  former  has  been  discovered,  and  is  on  exhibition  in  Egypt ; 
the  mummy  of  the  latter,  whose  army  was  overwhelmed  in  the 
Red  Sea,  has  not  as  yet  been  heard  of.  Pithom,  one  of  the 
store-cities  -  built  b}^  the  Israelites  for  the  king  of  Egypt,  has 
been  discovered  —  enormous  brick  walls  enclosing  a  space  of 
about  fifty-five  thousand  square  yards.  These  walls  furnish 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  historical  statement  that  the  Egyp- 
tian oppressors  refused  straw  to  the  Israelites  for  the  making  of 
brick. ^  Naville,  using  the  words  of  another,  says  :  "I  carefully 
examined  the  chamber  walls,  and  I  noticed  that  some  of  the 

1  Sayce,  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,  pp.  174-178.  2  Gen.  14  :  18. 

3  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,  p.  337.  *  Ex.  1 :  8. 
^Brugsch-Bey,  Egypt  Under  the  PharaoJis,  pp.  121,  122. 

^Idem,  p.  318.  ^  Ex.  1:11.  s  Ex.  5  :  7-19. 


HISTORICAL  INTEGRITY  I59 

corners  of  the  brickwork  throughout  were  built  of  bricks  without 
straw.  I  do  not  remember  to  have  met  anywhere  in  Egypt  bricks 
so  made.  In  a  dry  climate  like  Egypt  it  is  not  necessary  to  burn 
the  bricks ;  they  are  made  of  Nile  mud  and  dried  in  the  sun. 
Straw  is  mixed  with  them  to  give  them  coherence."  ^  Succoth, 
the  first  stage  in  the  exodus  of  the  Israelites,  ^  has  been  identified 
as  the  civil  name  for  Pithom  and  the  country  lying  around  it.^ 
The  other  store-city,  built  for  Pharaoh  by  the  Israelites  (Rame- 
ses),  is  mentioned  in  the  papyri,  and  has  been  identified  with 
Phacus.*  At  the  time  of  the  oppression  and  of  the  exodus 
there  was  in  Egypt  a  numerous  and  heterogeneous  race  of  trib- 
utaries and  captives,  who  were  much  in  the  same  condition  of 
bondage  and  degradation  with  the  Hebrews."  Thus  is  explained 
and  verified  the  declaration  that  "a  mixed  multitude"  (literally, 
' '  a  very  great  mixture ' ' )  went  up  with  them.  ^  The  route  of  the 
exodus  has  been  determined,''  notwithstanding  the  singular 
opinion  of  Brugsch-Be}^ 

Voltaire  objected  to  the  statement  that  the  Israelites  in  the 
time  of  Moses  conquered  sixty  fortified  cities,  besides  many 
unwalled  towns,  in  the  region  of  Argob  in  Bashan,  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  improbable  that  so  many  cities  and  towns  existed  in 
one  small  canton,  and  he  suggests,  in  the  style  that  has  become 
very  prevalent,  that  some  reviser  has  exaggerated  the  number.^ 
Modern  research,  however,  has  demonstrated  that  ancient  Bashan 
was  exceedingly  populous.  The  density  of  its  ancient  popula- 
tion is  attested  by  the  number  of  ruined  towns  and  cities  found 
to-day  in  the  country.  Burckhardt  found  the  ruins  of  two 
hundred  villages  within  a  short  distance  of  one  another.  Dr. 
Robinson  gives  the  names  of  more  than  two  hundred  places  in 
the  Hauran  and  more  than  eighty  in  Batanea  or  Bashan.^  Tris- 
tram says,  "The  ruined  villages  lie  thick  in  every  direction, 
seldom  more  than  half  a  mile  apart."  '^^  The  ancient  fertility  of 
the  soil  is  also  abundantly  attested.  Voltaire's  objection  is 
groundless. 

Furthermore,  the  names  of  Kadesh,  Megiddo,  and  of  nearly 
all  the  cities  and  towns  are  found  in  the  inscriptions,  tablets, 

1  Store-oity  of  Pithom  and  the  Route  of  the  Exodus,  pp.  10-12.         2  Ex.  12  :  37. 

3  Brugseh-Bey,  Egypt  Under  the  Pharaohs,  pp.  96,  317.  ■»  Idem,  p.  96. 

6  Idem,  pp.  301,  317,  318.  «  Ex.  12  :  38. 

'  Naville,  Store-city  of  Pithom  and  Route  of  the  Exodus,  pp.  27-31. 

«  Dictionnaire  Philosophique,  Article  "Moses." 

»  Biblical  Researches,  Vol.  III.,  App.,  pp.  150-159.  ^'>  Land  of  Moab,  p.  .330. 


l6o  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE)    PENTATEUCH 

or  other  monuments.  In  the  same  way  the  existence  of  the 
Hittites,  Amorites,  and  other  Canaanitish  races  and  tribes  referred 
to  in  the  Pentateuchal  history  has  been  demonstrated.  It  is 
shown  that  in  the  century  before  the  exodus  the  Hittite  kingdom 
in  Palestine  was  strong  enough  to  withstand  the  Egyptian 
empire,  then  the  most  powerful  in  existence,  and  to  compel  its 
head,  the  great  Rameses  II.,  to  enter  into  a  league  with  it  on 
equal  terms.  ^  It  is  further  shown  that  the  races  and  tribes  in 
Palestine  had  been  so  weakened  by  long-continued  wars  imme- 
diately before  the  advent  of  the  Israelites  as  to  be  incapable  of 
making  effectual  resistance. 

But  for  the  want  of  space  many  other  illustrations  might  be 
given  of  the  way  in  which  archaeology  is  vindicating  the  histor- 
ical character  of  the  Pentateuch  and  other  portions  of  the  Bible. 
We  close  this  chapter  with  a  quotation  from  Professor  Sayce: 
"What  has  been  achieved  already  is  an  earnest  of  what  will  be 
achieved  when  the  buried  cities  and  tombs  of  the  East  have  all 
been  made  to  deliver  their  dead.  We  cannot  expect  to  find  every- 
thing verified,  but  the  historian  will  be  content  if  it  is  permitted 
him  to  turn  with  the  same  confidence  to  the  books  of  Moses  as 
he  does  to  Thucydides  or  Tacitus."  And  again,  "In  glancing 
over  the  preceding  pages,  we  cannot  fail  to  be  struck  by  the  fact 
that  the  evidence  of  Oriental  archaeology  is,  on  the  whole,  dis- 
tinctly unfavorable  to  the  pretensions  of  'the  higher  criti- 
cism.' "2 

1  Brugsch-Bey,  Egypt  Under  the  Pharaofis,  pp.  258-286. 

2  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,  pp.  233, 561. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

EXACTNESS. 

In  addition  to  the  historical  trustworthiness  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, its  accuracy  in  minute  details  is  to  be  considered.  We 
regard  this  minute  accuracy  as  one  of  its  most  remarkable  char- 
acteristics, and  it  constitutes  unmistakable  evidence  that  the 
book  was  written  by  one  who  witnessed  the  scenes  described. 
God  might,  indeed,  have  employed  and  inspired,  for  the  purpose 
of  writing  an  account  of  the  exodus  and  succeeding  events, 
some  one  who  was  ignorant  of  them,  and  have  imparted  to  him 
the  necessary  knowledge.  But  this  is  not  God's  way  of  doing. 
He  is  disposed  to  utilize  human  talent  as  far  as  practicable 
and  to  work  miracles  only  so  far  as  may  be  necessary.  The 
minute  accuracy  of  the  Pentateuch  presents  these  two  alterna- 
tives for  our  adoption  :  either  its  author  lived  in  Egypt  and  was 
an  eye-witness  of  the  exodus,  or  divine  knowledge  was  com- 
municated to  him  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty.  It 
makes  little  difference  which  alternative  the  analytic  critic 
accepts.     Either  is  fatal  to  his  views. 

The  kind  of  accuracy  to  which  we  refer  is  virtually  conceded 
to  the  Pentateuch.  We  are  far  from  sajdng  that  the  analytic 
critics  admit  it  to  be  accurate  in  every  respect.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  charge  upon  it  contradictions,  inconsistencies,  exag- 
gerations, and  almost  all  sorts  of  errors.  Some  of  them  regard 
all  accounts  of  miracles  as  myths,  fictions,  or  incredible  stories. 
But  we  speak  now  of  geographical,  historical,  and  chronological 
references  and  statements  —  references  and  statements  concerning 
the  history,  geography,  climate,  and  soil  of  Egypt,  Palestine, 
and  other  countries  ;  the  mountains,  lakes,  seas,  and  rivers  ;  the 
inhabitants,  their  manners  and  customs  ;  the  governments  and 
laws.  Inaccuracy  in  matters  of  this  kind  has  often  been  charged 
upon  the  Pentateuch,  but  has  never  been  proved.  The  charge, 
however,  has  been  abandoned,  or  virtually  withdrawn.  All 
efforts  of  this  kind  have  failed.  To-daj'  the  Pentateuch  is  vir- 
tually admitted  to  be  free  from  the  errors  that  characterize  even 

11  161 


1 62  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PKNTATEJUCH 

trustworthy  historians.  Not  an  Egyptologist  nor  any  archaeolo- 
gist finds  a  single  error  in  all  the  Pentateuchal  books.  The 
result  of  the  archseological  discoveries  of  modern  times,  so  far 
as  the  Pentateuchal  books  are  concerned,  has  only  been  to  dem- 
onstrate their  accuracy  and  vindicate  their  historical  character. 
Hence  "the  higher  criticism"  regards  modern  archaeology  with 
disfavor,  if  not  with  downright  hostility. 

In  the  case  of  other  ancient  books  the  result  has  been  very  dif- 
ferent. Archaeological  investigation  has  been  making  their  inac- 
curacy more  and  more  evident. 

The  inaccuracies  of  Herodotus  are  notorious.  Though  truth- 
ful himself,  and  though  he  gives  us  more  information  about 
Egypt  than  any  other  ancient  writer,  yet  he  accepted  in  many 
cases  the  incorrect  statements  of  others,  and  added  some  mis- 
takes of  his  own.  He  is  frequently  inaccurate  in  matters  that 
seemingly  came  under  his  own  observation.  He  declares  that 
the  Egyptians  had  no  vines  in  their  country.^  This  has  been 
conclusively  shown  to  be  incorrect  by  Kenrick,  Wilkinson, 
Brugsch-Bey,  and  others.^  Even  Herodotus  virtually  contradicts 
himself  by  referring,  as  he  repeatedly  does,  to  wine  and  raisins 
in  Egypt.  ^  In  regard  to  vines  and  wine  in  Egypt  the  Penta- 
teuch •*  is  accurate,  the  Father  of  History  inaccurate.  Herodotus 
further  declares  that  the  use  of  wheat  and  barley  bread  as  food 
was  considered  disgraceful.^  Both  Wilkinson^  and  Kenrick' 
declare  this  statement  to  be  incorrect.  The  inaccuracy  of  Herod- 
otus in  saying  that  the  Egyptians  drank  only  out  of  brazen 
cups«  is  also  noticed  by  Wilkinson,^  and  is  demonstrated  by  the 
monuments.  The  Egyptologist  further  claims  that  "but  little 
reliance  can  be  placed  on  his  measurements  of  the  pyramids."^*' 
Kenrick  declares  that  the  history  given  by  Herodotus  of  all  that 
precedes  800  B.C.  "cannot  be  accepted  as  true,  either  in  its  facts 
or  its  dates,"  and  he  suggests  that  the  priests,  with  whom  he 
conversed,  were  of  a  very  subordinate  rank,  and  ignorant  of  the 
history  of  their  country,  and  that  they  had  invented  such  a  his- 
tory as  would  satisfy  the  curiosity  and  excite  the  imagination  of 
visitors.  ^  ^ 

1 2 :  77. 

^  Egypt  Under  the  Pharaohs,  Vol.  I.,  p.  161 ;  Ancient  Egyptians,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  BO- 
SS ;  Ancient  Egypt  Under  the  PTmraohs,  p.  300.        ^  2  :  37  ;  2  :  39.        *  Gen.  40  :  9-13. 
«  2  :  36.  ®  Ancient  Egyptians,  Vol.  I.,  p.  179. 

''Ancient  Egypt  Under  the  Pharaohs,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  158,  159.  ^2  :  37. 

^Ancient  Egyptians,  Vol.  I.,  p.  280.  '^"Ancient  Egyptians,  Vol.  II.,  p.  256. 

11  Ancient  Egypt  Under  the  Pharaohs,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  60,  62. 


EXACTNESS  163 

Other  ancient  writers  are  still  more  inaccurate.  The  editor  of 
Brugsch-Bey  claims  that,  "notwithstanding  the  many  attacks 
which  have  been  made  on  the  veracity  of  the  ancient  historian, 
modern  excavations  and  the  deciphering  of  texts  prove  that  his 
statements  from  his  own  personal  knowledge  are,  on  the  whole,  to 
be  trusted,"  and  then  adds,  "Next  to  him  in  rank,  but  greatly  his 
inferiors,  are  Diodorus  Siculus,  Strabo,  Josephus,  and  Plutarch,  "i 

The  testimou}^  of  Professor  Sayce  to  the  inaccuracy  of  Herod- 
otus and  other  ancient  writers  is  as  follows  :  ' '  I,et  us  now  turn 
to  the  classical  writers  who  have  left  accounts  of  the  ancient 
history  of  the  East.  Among  these  Herodotus,  and  Ktesias  of 
Knidos,  naturally  claim  our  first  attention.  Herodotus  has  been 
termed  'the  Father  of  History,'  since  the  later  classical  concep- 
tions of  Oriental  history  were  in  great  measure  based  upon  his 
work.  Ktesias  was  the  physician  of  the  Persian  king  Arta- 
xerxes,  and  thus  had  access  to  the  state  archives  of  Persia ;  on 
the  strength  of  these  he  maintained  that  Herodotus  had  'lied,* 
and  he  wrote  a  work  with  the  object  of  contradicting  most  of  the 
older  historian's  statements.  But  when  confronted  with  con- 
temporaneous monuments,  Herodotus  and  Ktesias  alike  turn  out 
to  be  false  guides.  In  Egypt,  Herodotus  placed  the  pyramid- 
builders  after  the  time  of  Rameses  or  Sesostris,  and  but  shortly 
before  the  age  of  the  Ethiopians  Sabaco  and  Tirhakah,  although 
in  reality  they  preceded  them  by  centuries.  Among  the  Egyptian 
kings  a  Greek  demigod  and  Eake  Moeris  in  the  Fayum  are  made 
to  figure,  and  the  work  of  Herodotus  abounds  with  small  inac- 
curacies in  the  explanation  of  Egyptian  words  and  customs,  and 
in  the  description  of  the  products  of  the  country.  His  account 
of  Assyria  and  Babylonia  is  still  more  misleading.  The  Assyrian 
and  Bab3donian  empires  are  confounded  together,  just  as  they 
are  in  the  Book  of  Judith  ;  Sennacherib  is  called  king  of  the 
Arabians,  and  Nebuchadnezzar  is  transformed  into  Labynetos  I. 
(or  Nabonidos),  and  made  the  father  of  the  real  Nabonidos. 
The  fortifications  of  Babylonia  are  ascribed  to  a  queen  Nitokris, 
who  bears  an  Egyptian  name,  and  is  placed  five  generations  after 
Semiramis,  a  title  of  the  Babylonian  goddess  Istar  or  Ashtoreth  ; 
Vv'hile  Ninos,  that  is,  Nineveh,  is  supposed  to  be  an  Assyrian 
monarch,  and  termed  the  son  of  Belos  or  Baal.  In  the  frag- 
ments of  Ktesias  Assyrian  history  fares  no  better."^ 

»  Egypt  Under  the  Pharaohs,  p.  443. 

2  Witness  of  Ancient  Monuments  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  Living  Pa^ers^ 
Vol.  VI.,  Essay  32,  pp.  42,  43. 


l64  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OP   THE)    PEiNTATEUCH 

Thus  is  set  forth  the  inaccuracy  of  the  classical  writers.  In 
complete  contrast  with  all  this  is  the  view  presented  by  the 
archaeologists  in  regard  to  the  Pentateuch.  They  allude  to 
the  Pentateuchal  history  again  and  again  as  confirmed  by  the 
monuments.  The  most  distinguished  of  the  archaeologists  and 
Egyptologists,  Kenrick,  Wilkinson,  Lepsius,  Brugsch-Bey, 
Naville,  Maspero,  Palmer,  and  all  the  rest,  though  pointing 
out  the  inaccuracies  of  the  classical  writers  in  treating  of 
ancient  Oriental  affairs,  have  not  indicated  a  single  error  in 
all  the  five  books  of  the  Pentateuch — not  a  single  error  in  his- 
tory, chronology,  or  geography,  not  a  single  erroneous  statement 
as  to  fact  or  date.  Whatever  light  comes  from  the  ancient  mon- 
uments, from  papyri  and  inscriptions,  from  tablets  of  clay  and 
tablets  of  stone,  from  tombs  and  mummies  of  the  dead,  from 
mounds  in  Babylonia  and  ruined  palaces  in  Assj^ria,  whatever 
light  comes  from  these  sources  and  falls  on  the  Pentateuchal 
history,  serves  but  to  explain,  to  prove,  or  to  confirm.  Not 
every  difficulty  has  yet  been  removed,  and  perhaps  never  will  be, 
but  enough  has  been  done  to  give  assurance  that  as  archaeolog- 
ical investigation  advances  the  accuracy  of  the  Pentateuch,  even 
in  minute  affairs,  will  continue  to  be  vindicated. 

Among  the  internal  proofs  of  the  minute  accuracy  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch we  may  refer  to  its  chronology.  Without  maintaining  at 
this  time  its  absolute  correctness,  we  propose  to  point  out  its 
remarkable  definiteness  and  self-consistency. 

According  to  Genesis,  ten  generations  preceded  the  flood. 
Bach  generation  is  represented  b}''  a  patriarch.  These  patriarchs 
are  all  mentioned  by  name;  the  order  of  their  succession  is  indi- 
cated ;  the  time  elapsing  between  the  birth  of  each  predecessor 
and  that  of  his  successor  is  stated,  and  the  age  at  which  each 
died  is  given.  It  is  stated  that  the  deluge  took  place  in  the  six 
hundredth  year  of  Noah.  These  dates  and  facts  are  all  clearly 
and  definitely  stated.  They  indicate  unmistakably  that  the 
deluge  occurred  1656  A.M.,  that  Methuselah  died  that  very  year, 
and  that  I^amechdied  1651  A.M.,  five  years  previous. 

According  to  the  sacred  history,  the  deluge  was  designed  to 
destroy  mankind  for  their  wickedness,  and  only  righteous  Noah 
and  his  family  were  to  be  preserved.  The  history  states  that,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  these  alone  were  preserved.  Now,  if  the  date 
of  the  deluge  had  been  fixed  at  any  other  year  than  precisely 
1656  A.M.,  the  result  would  have  been  confusion  and  contradic- 


exactne:ss  165 

tion  in  the  record.  Had  it  occurred  one  year  earlier,  it  would 
have  destroyed  Methuselah,  who  lived  to  the  year  1656.  lyamech 
lived  only  seven  hundred  and  seventy-seven  years,  whereas  the 
average  length  of  life  among  the  antediluvian  patriarchs,  includ- 
ing Noah,  was  eight  hundred  and  fifty-seven  and  one-half  years. 
Had  he  attained  to  this  average  age,  he  would  have  lived 
seventy-five  and  one-half  years  after  the  deluge.  Had  that 
event  occurred  five  3^ears  before  the  six  hundredth  3'ear  of  Noah's 
life,  both  Ivamech  and  Methuselah  must  have  entered  the  ark  or 
been  drowned  with  the  wicked.  As  the  latter  died  1656  A.M., 
and  as  the  flood  began  on  the  seventeenth  day  of  the  second 
month  of  that  year,  1  it  is  evident  that  Noah  attended  the  funeral 
of  his  grandfather  only  a  short  time  before  the  flood  came. 
These  conclusions  are  inevitable,  if  we  accept  the  facts  and  dates 
as  given.  Adam  lived  nine  hundred  and  thirty  years,  and,  of 
course,  died  930  A.M.  Adding  together  the  times  elapsing 
between  the  birth  of  father  and  of  son  on  down  to  Noah,  we 
find  that  Noah's  six  hundredth  year  was  1656  A.M.;  that  Methu- 
selah was  born  687  A.M.,  was  contemporary  with  Adam  two 
hundred  and  forty-three  years,  and  died  the  year  of  the  deluge, 
1656  A.M.;  and  that  I^amech,  being  born  874  A.M.,  died  1651 
A.M.,  five  years  before  the  flood. 

We  thus  have  an  example  of  remarkable  accuracy.  If  the 
date  of  the  deluge  had  been  fixed  at  any  year  preceding  1656 
A.M.,  it  would  have  involved  the  Pentateuchal  history  and 
chronology  in  contradiction.  On  the  hypothesis  of  fiction,  or 
any  hj^pothesis  other  than  that  of  veritable  histor}^,  how  very 
shrewd  and  how  carefully  exact  the  author,  or  authors,  of 
Genesis  must  have  been !  Or  will  the  analytic  critic  assume 
that  in  this  case  there  was  merely  an  accidental  and  fortunate 
escape  from  the  committal  of  a  damaging  blunder? 

An  example  of  inaccuracy  is  furnished  by  the  Septuagint  text 
in  this  very  matter  of  antediluvian  chronology.  It  adds  in  most 
cases  one  hundred  years  to  the  time  intervening  between  the 
births  of  father  and  son,  thus  placing  the  flood  in  the  year  2242 
A.M.,  and  the  birth  of  Methuselah  1287  A.M.  It  assigns  nine 
hundred  and  sixty-nine  years  as  the  duration  of  Methuselah's 
life,  and  thus  places  his  death  fourteen  years  after  the  flood, 
though  it  represents,  of  course,  only  Noah  and  his  family  as 
having  been  saved  in  the  ark.     The  Samaritan  text  decreases  the 

iGen.  7:  11. 


1 66  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OP   THE    PENTATEUCH 

time  interveninc^  between  the  births  of  father  and  son,  in  one 
case  by  one  hundred  years  and  in  two  cases  by  more  than  one 
hundred,  and  thus  places  the  deluge  at  1307  A.M.  It  succeeds  in 
allowing  Methuselah  and  lyamech  to  die  before  the  flood  (which 
it  thus  places  in  the  year  1307  A.M.)  by  shortening  the  life  of  the 
former  from  nine  hundred  and  sixty-nine  to  seven  hundred  and 
twenty  years,  and  of  the  latter  from  seven  hundred  and  seventy- 
seven  to  six  hundred  and  fift3^-three,  thus  representing  them  as 
dying  3'ounger  than  any  of  the  other  antediluvian  patriarchs, 
and  representing  Methuselah's  life  as  being  one  hundred  and 
thirty-seven  and  one-half  years,  and  Lamech's  as  two  hundred 
and  thirty-four  and  one-half,  shorter  than  the  average  of  human 
life  before  the  flood. 

Moreover,  the  Hebrew  chronology  of  men  and  generations  after 
the  flood  is  characterized  by  definiteness  and  accurate  self- 
consistenc}^  Noah  lived  nine  hundred  and  fifty  years,  dying 
three  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  flood — 2006  A.M.  ^  Ar- 
phaxad  was  born  two  years  after  the  flood,  in  the  one  hundredth 
year  of  Shem,  and  died  at  the  age  of  four  hundred  and  thirty- 
eight.^  Thus  the  account  goes  on,  indicating  the  time  of  the 
birth  and  death,  and  the  length  of  life,  of  the  postdiluvian 
patriarchs  on  down  to  Abraham.^ 

Possibly  some  one  may  claim  that  there  is  a  discrepancy  in 
the  account  of  Shem's  age  and  Arphaxad's  birth.  Shem,  at  the 
age  of  one  hundred  years,  begat  Arphaxad,  two  years  after 
the  flood.  But  Noah,  being  six  hundred  years  old  at  the 
time  of  the  flood,'*  was,  of  course,  six  hundred  and  two  3'ears 
old  two  years  after  the  flood.  But  it  may  be  claimed  that  Noah 
was  five  hundred  years  older  than  Shem ;  for  it  is  expressly 
declared  that  ' '  Noah  was  five  hundred  years  old :  and  Noah 
begat  Shem,  Ham,  and  Japheth."^  This  doubtless  means  that 
Noah  was  five  hundred  3'ears  old  when  his  oldest  son  was 
born.  Now,  if  Shem  was  the  oldest  son,  there  was  a  difference 
of  five  hundred  years  between  his  age  and  that  of  his  father. 
At  the  time  of  the  flood,  Noah  being  six  hundred  3'ears 
old,*  Shem  must  have  been  one  hundred;  and  at  the  birth  of 
Arphaxad,  two  years  after  the  flood,  Shem  must  have  been  one 
hundred  and  two  years  old.  But  according  to  the  record  he  was 
only  one  hundred.  Thus  inaccuracy  may  be  inferred.  Shem, 
however,  was  not  the  oldest  son,  though  he  had  the  preeminence 

1  Gen.  9  :  28,  29.     2  ^en.  11 :  10-13.     ^  Gen.  11 :  10-32.    *  Gen.  7  :  11.     ^  Gen.  5  :  32. 


EXACTNESS  167 

and  was  accounted  the  first-born,  as  being  the  progenitor  of 
Abraham,  of  the  chosen  race,  and  of  Christ.  Ham  was  the 
3^oungest  son,^  and  Japheth  was  older  than  Shem.2  It  was 
Japheth,  then,  that  was  born  when  Noah  was  five  hundred  years 
old  ;  and  Shem,  according  to  the  record,  next  in  age  to  Japheth, 
was  ninety-eight  years  old  at  the  time  of  the  flood. 

Inconsistency  is  claimed  also  in  the  record  of  the  ages  of 
Terah  and  Abraham.  "And  Terah  lived  seventy  years,  and 
begat  Abram,  Nahor,  and  Haran."  ^  The  difference,  then, 
between  the  ages  of  Terah  and  Abram  was  seventy  years,  if 
Abram  was  the  oldest  son.  Terah  died  at  the  age  of  two  hundred 
and  five,'*  and  the  next  event  mentioned  after  Terah' s  death  is 
the  departure  of  Abram  from  Haran,  at  the  age  of  seventy-five. ^ 
If  these  events  are  mentioned  in  the  order  of  their  occurrence, 
either  Abram  must  have  been  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  years 
old  at  the  time  of  his  departure  from  Haran,  or  there  must  have 
been  a  difference  of  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  betw^een  his 
age  and  Terah's.  In  either  case  there  is  a  discrepancy  in  the 
record.  But  it  is  possible  that  events  are  not  mentioned  in  the 
order  of  their  occurrence  in  this  case.  The  death  of  Ishmael  is 
recorded  more  than  half  a  century  out  of  its  chronological 
order.  6  Isaac's  death  is  mentioned  many  years  in  advance  of  its 
actual  place  in  the  chronology.  So,  too,  the  death  of  Terah  may 
have  occurred  many  j^ears  after  the  departure  of  Abram,  though 
mentioned  in  the  history  before.  Stephen  indeed  refers  to  the 
death  of  Terah  as  preceding  the  departure  of  Abram  from  Haran. 
But  the  author  of  the  Acts  merely  quotes  the  statement  of 
Stephen  without  approving  it.  But  while  the  death  of  Terah 
ma}^  be  mentioned  out  of  its  chronological  order,  and  in  this  way 
the  accuracy  of  the  record  be  vindicated,  we  think  that  this 
hypothesis  is  unnecessary.  The  record  does  not  say  that  the 
age  of  Terah  was  seventy  at  the  time  of  Abram's  birth,  but 
that  he  "lived  seventy  years  and  begat  Abram,  Nahor,  and 
Haran."  Certainly  all  the  three  sons  were  not  born  just  when 
their  father  was  seventy  years  old.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  they  were  triplets.  We  understand  that  the  record  gives 
the  age  of  Terah  at  the  time  of  the  birth  of  his  oldest  son,  just 
as  in  the  case  of  Noah  ;  and  that  Abram,  like  Shem,  was  not 
actually  the  first-born,  but  was  accounted   as  such.     There  is 

'Gen.  9:24.  *  Gen.  10:21.  ^  Gen.  11:26.  *  Gen.  11:32. 

5  Gen.  12:4.  «Gen.25:17. 


1 68  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE)    PENTATEUCH 

reason  to  believe  that  Haran  was  the  oldest  son.  Nahor  married 
his  daughter,  and  probably  Abram's  wife,  Sarai,  was  also  his 
daughter.  1  This  suggests  that  Haran  was  older  than  his 
brothers.  Hence  the  charge  of  inconsistency  is  in  this  case 
without  proof.  Abrani  may  have  been  born  when  Terah  was  one 
hundred  and  thirty  years  old,  Abram  may  have  been  of  the  age 
of  seventy-five  at  the  time  of  his  departure  from  Haran,  and 
Terah  may  have  died  immediately  before,  at  the  age  of  two 
hundred  and  five. 

It  may  be  said  that  we  have  here  an  instance  at  least  of  indefi- 
niteness  in  the  fact  that  we  are  not  at  once  informed  which  son 
was  born  to  Terah  in  his  seventieth  year.  Be  it  so.  This  is  the 
only  instance  of  the  kind  in  the  whole  record.  All  the  other 
facts  and  dates  are  clear. 

Abrani  left  Haran  ( at  or  before  his  father's  death)  at  the  age 
of  seventy-five.^  After  a  residence  of  ten  years  in  Canaan, 
Abram,  at  the  age  of  eighty-five  (seventy-five  plus  ten),  took 
Hagar  as  his  wife.  ^  Ishmael  was  born  when  Abram  was  eighty- 
six  years  old.*  At  the  time  of  the  circumcision  Abram  was 
ninety-nine  and  Ishmael  thirteen. ^  The  difference  between  their 
ages  was  eighty-six  (ninety-nine  minus  thirteen ).  At  the  time 
of  Isaac's  birth  Abraham  was  one  hundred  years  old.  ^  The  differ- 
ence between  the  ages  of  Ishmael  and  Isaac  was  fourteen  years. 
Ishmael  died  at  the  age  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-seven.'^  Isaac 
was  married  at  forty,  ^  and  twenty  years  afterward  Jacob  and 
Esau  were  born,  when  Isaac  was  sixty  years  old.^  There  was, 
then,  an  interval  of  one  hundred  and  sixty  years  between  the 
birth  of  Abraham  and  that  of  Jacob.  Abraham  died  at  the  age 
of  one  hundred  and  seventy-five.  ^  ^  Jacob  and  Esau  were  there- 
fore born  fifteen  years  before  the  death  of  their  grandfather. 

Jacob  was  married  at  the  age  of  eighty-four,  and  seven  years 
afterward  Joseph  was  born ;  for  there  was  a  dilBference  of  ninety- 
one  years  between  the  ages  of  Jacob  and  Joseph,  which  is  shown 
as  follows  :  When  Jacob  was  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  old, 
Joseph  was  thirty-nine  ;  for  Joseph  was  made  prime  minister  to 
Pharaoh  at  the  age  of  thirty  ;  ^^  and  nine  years  (seven  of  plenty 
and  two  of  famine)  elapsed  after  this  before  the  second  visit  of 
Jacob's  sons  to  Egypt  and  the  migration.^ ^  Joseph's  age  at  the 
time  of  the  migration  was  thirty-nine,  and  Jacob's  age  was  one 

1  Gen.  11 :  29.  «  (jen.  12  :  4.  ^  Gen.  16 :  3.  *  Gen.  16 :  16. 
6  Gen.  17  :  24,  25.  «  Gen.  21 :  5.  '  Gen.  25 :  17.  «  Gen.  25 :  20. 
» Gen.  25 :  26.      "Gen.  25 :  7.      »i Gen.  41 :  46.      i^Gen.  45 :  6. 


EXACTNESS  169 

hundred  and  thirty.^  The  difference,  then,  in  their  ages  was 
ninety-one  (one  hundred  and  thirty  less  thirty-nine).  Joseph 
was  born  the  seventh  year  after  Jacob's  double  marriage,  at  the 
close  of  the  fourteenth  year  of  his  residence  in  Padan-aram.^ 
Jacob  served  seven  years  for  I^eah,  seven  for  Rachel,  and  was  for 
six  years  a  partner  in  business  with  lyaban.^  He  remained  there- 
fore, all  together,  in  Padan-aram  twenty  years  (seven  plus  seven 
plus  six).  Joseph,  being  born  at  the  close  of  the  fourteenth 
year,  was  six  years  old  at  the  time  of  the  departure  of  the  family 
from  Padan-aram.  Jacob,  therefore,  was  ninety-seven  (ninety-one 
plus  six).  At  the  time  of  his  flight  from  Esau  he  was  sev- 
enty-seven (ninety-seven  minus  twenty).  At  the  time  of  his 
double  marriage  he  was  eighty-four  (seventy-seven  plus  seven). 
Joseph,  at  the  time  of  his  arrival  as  a  slave  in  Egypt,  was  seven- 
teen,^ and  Jacob  was  one  hundred  and  eight  (seventeen  plus 
ninety-one).  The  difference  in  age  between  Joseph  and  his 
grandfather  Isaac  was  one  hundred  and  fifty-one  (sixty  plus 
ninety-one).  At  the  time  of  Joseph's  sale  to  the  Ishmaelites 
Isaac's  age  was  one  hundred  and  sixty-eight  (seventeen  plus  one 
hundred  and  fifty-one).  Isaac  died  at  the  age  of  one  hundred 
and  eighty,^  twelve  years  after  the  sale  of  Joseph. 

The  time  between  the  return  to  Canaan  and  the  sale  of  Joseph 
was  eleven  years  (seventeen  minus  six,  or  one  hundred  and  eight 
minus  ninety-seven).  The  time  between  the  return  to  Canaan 
and  the  emigration  to  Egypt  was  thirty-three  years  (thirty-nine 
minus  six,  or  one  hundred  and  thirty  minus  ninety-seven ). 

The  time  of  the  sojourn  of  the  patriarchs  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob  in  Canaan,  that  is,  the  time  from  the  entrance  into  Canaan 
to  the  migration  to  Egypt,  is  represented  as  follows :  From  the 
entrance  into  Canaan  to  the  birth  of  Isaac,  twenty-five  years  ; 
then  to  the  birth  of  Jacob,  sixty  years  ;  and,  next,  to  the  migra- 
tion to  Egypt,  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years  (twenty-five  plus 
sixty  plus  one  hundred  and  thirty).  All  these  facts  and  dates 
are  either  stated  with  unmistakable  exactness,  or  are  made  out 
with  mathematical  precision. 

The  same  precision  characterizes  the  subsequent  chronological 
and  genealogical  statements  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  Exodus 
12  :  40,  41  we  have  a  statement  as  explicit  historically  and  chron- 
ologically as  could  be  made  in  regard  to  the  duration  of  the 
sojourn  in  Egypt.     It  is  declared  to  have  been  four  hundred  and 

» Gen.  47:9.      'Gen.  30:25.      =»  Gen.  31 :  38-41.      *  Gen.  37:2.      « Gen.  35:28. 


170  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE)   PENTATEUCH 

thirty  years  —  no  more  and  no  less.  The  ver3^^  year,  month,  ^  and 
day  of  the  month  in  which  the  exodus  began  and  the  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  terminated,  are  indicated.  This  date,  with 
all  its  exactness,  is  again  given  in  Numbers  ^,3  :  t,,  which  claims 
to  be  written  by  Moses,  We  do  not  enter  into  defense  of  the 
absolute  correctness  of  the  passage.  It  is  not  our  business  now 
to  notice  what  the  critics  say  about  its  authorship.  We  simply 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  clear  and  explicit  statement  is 
a  part  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  is  not  inconsistent  with  an5^thing 
else  contained  in  it.  The  initial  statement  of  the  Book  of  Num- 
bers is  similar  in  character :  "The  first  day  of  the  second  month, 
in  the  second  year  after  they  were  come  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt."  ^  Here  again  the  year,  month,  and  day  are  indicated. 
Again,  in  Numbers  10:  11  is  the  statement  that  the  Israelites  set 
out  from  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  "on  the  twentieth  day  of  the 
second  month,  in  the  second  year."  In  both  these  cases  the 
event  referred  to  is  dated  from  the  exodus.  In  like  manner 
the  second  celebration  of  the  Passover  is  dated  from  the  exodus, 
and  hence  declared  to  be  in  the  second  year.^  This  was  in 
accordance  with  the  record  of  this  event  itself,  the  month  to 
be  "the  beginning  of  months,"  and  the  "night  to  be  much 
observed,"'* 

Chronological  precision  characterizes  the  record  concerning 
the  forty  years'  wandering  in  the  desert.  Tlie  forty  years  were 
emphasized.  "After  the  number  of  the  days  in  which  ye 
searched  the  land,  even  forty  days,  each  day  for  a  year,  shall  ye 
bear  your  iniquities,  even  forty  years ;  and  3^e  shall  know  my 
breach  of  promise "^  (rather,  "my  recall  of  promise").  But  as 
all  events  were  dated  from  the  exodus,  the  fortj^  years  of  wander- 
ing were  to  be  counted  from  that  epoch.  This  was  all  the  more 
proper  for  the  reason  that  the  Israelites,  since  their  departure 
from  Egypt,  had  been  all  the  time  in  the  wilderness.  In  har- 
mony with  these  chronological  views,  and  marked  by  the  usual 
exactness,  is  the  record  in  Deuteronomy  concerning  Moses,  very 
near  the  close  of  the  forty  years'  wandering:  "And  it  came  to 
pass  in  the  fortieth  year,  in  the  eleventh  month,  on  the  first  day 
of  the  month,  that  Moses  spake  unto  the  children  of  Israel."^ 

The  same  characteristics  mark  the  chronological  record  con- 
cerning Moses  and  Aaron.     Aaron  was  the  elder  of  the  brothers, 

»Ex.  12:2, 18.  «  Num.  1 :  1.  3]srum.9:l.  *Ex.  12:2,42. 

6  Num.  14 :  34.  «  Deut.  1 :  3. 


EXACTNESS  171 

and  he  is  named  first  in  the  genealogy.  ^  At  the  time  of  their 
first  interview  with  Pharaoh,  Aaron  was  eight3'-three  years  old, 
and  Moses  eighty.  ^  Moses  lived  one  hundred  and  twenty 
years,  and  Aaron  one  hundred  and  twenty-three.  Aaron  died 
on  Mount  Hor,  in  the  fortieth  year  after  the  exodus,  on  the  first 
day  of  the  fifth  month,  one  hundred  and  twenty-three  years 
old.^  But  of  the  death  of  Moses  scarcely  any  particulars  are 
given.  Neither  the  day,  nor  the  month,  nor  even  the  year  is 
mentioned.  We  infer  that  he  died  at  the  close  of  the  fortieth 
year  after  the  exodus,  or  early  in  the  fort5^-first ;  for  Aaron,  who 
was  three  years  older,  died  in  the  fifth  month  of  the  fortieth 
year,  aged  one  hundred  and  twenty-three.  Moses,  then,  must 
have  died  not  long  after  his  brother.  In  the  record  of  his 
death  not  even  the  place  is  mentioned,  except  to  saj-  that  it 
was  somewhere  in  the  land  of  Moab.*  The  only  information 
we  have  as  to  the  particular  place  of  his  death  is,  that  God  had 
directed  him  to  ascend  Mount  Nebo,  in  order  to  look  across  the 
Jordan,  and  to  die.  But  this  meagerness  of  information  and 
this  absence  of  particulars  that  characterize  the  record  of  Moses' 
death  are  very  significant,  inasmuch  as  they  set  in  a  stronger 
light  the  definiteness,  particularity,  and  precision  of  preceding 
statements.  It  would  seem  that  the  account  of  the  great  law- 
giver's death  was  not  from  the  hand  that  wrote  the  passages  to 
which  we  have  called  attention  as  examples  of  particularit}-  and 
precision.  This  accords  with  what  we  conceive  to  be  the  truth 
in  the  case,  namely,  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  substan- 
tially as  we  have  it,  but  that,  of  course,  he  did  not  write  the 
account  of  his  own  death  and  burial. 

Not  only  the  same  definiteness  and  precision  and  self-consis- 
tency, but  also  the  same  chronological  ideas  and  S3\stem,  pervade 
the  Pentateuch  throughout.  In  the  time  of  Moses,  and  after- 
ward, events  were  dated  from  the  exodus.  The  exodus  was 
preceded  by  the  sojourn  of  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  in 
Egj'pt.  This  sojourn  and  the  exodus  were  associated  in  the 
mind  of  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  sojourn  in  Egypt 
was  preceded  by  the  sojourn  of  the  patriarchs  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob  two  hundred  and  fifteen  3'ears  in  Canaan.  These 
patriarchs  were  preceded  bj^  the  ten  postdiluvian  patriarchs,  who 
filled  the  period  of  three  hundred  and  sixt^'-five  3'ears  between 
the  flood  and  the  call  of  Abraham  ;  and  these  were  preceded  by 

'  Ex.  6 :  20 ;  Num.  26  :  59.        ^  ex.  7:7.        =  Num.  33 :  37-39.        *  Deut.  34  :  5. 


172  MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP    OF    THEJ    PENTATEUCH 

the  antediluvian  patriarchs,  who  filled  the  period  of  one  thou- 
sand six  hundred  and  fifty  six  years  between  the  creation  and 
the  flood.  This  is  the  chronological  system  of  the  Pentateuch  : 
forty  years  between  the  entrance  into  Canaan  and  the  exodus ; 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years  between  the  exodus  and  the  migra- 
tion to  Egypt ;  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years  between  the 
migration  to  Eg}' pt  and  the  migration  to  Canaan  ;  three  hundred 
and  sixty-five  years  between  the  migration  to  Canaan  and  the 
flood  ;  and  one  thousand  six  hundred  and  fifty-six  years  between 
the  flood  and  the  creation, — all  together,  two  thousand  six  hun- 
dred and  sixty-six  years  from  the  creation  to  the  exodus. 

1.  This  system  is  clear,  well  defined,  and  self-consistent. 

2.  So  self-consistent,  precise,  and  accurate  is  this  chrono- 
logical system  in  its  general  features  and  in  its  details,  that  there 
is  no  internal  evidence  against  its  absolute  correctness.  Assail- 
ants are  compelled  to  employ  exclusively  external  proofs. 

3.  The  only  doubtful  point  in  all  the  details  of  this  system 
is  the  birth-time  of  Abraham ;  that  is,  whether  he  was  born  in 
the  seventieth  or  one  hundred  and  thirtieth  year  of  Terah. 
Aside  from  this,  all  the  dates,  facts,  figures,  and  statements  are 
clear  and  distinct,  and  are  absolutely  consistent  with  one 
another. 

4.  The  only  place  in  the  Pentateuch  where  definiteness,  pre- 
cision, and  particularity  in  chronological  details  are  not  found,  is 
the  last  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  which  Moses,  of  course,  did 
not  write.  Had  Moses  given  an  account  of  his  own  death  and 
funeral,  it  would  doubtless  have  been  as  exact  and  minute  as  the 
account  of  the  death  and  burial  of  Aaron  at  Mount  Hor,  near  to 
Mosera.  ^ 

5.  The  precision  and  self-consistency  of  this  chronology  are 
in  striking  contrast  with  the  alterations,  inaccuracies,  and  incon- 
sistencies of  Josephus  and  of  the  Samaritan  and  Septuagint  text. 

6.  The  Pentateuchal  chronology,  if  self-contradictory  or 
erroneous  in  any  respect,  affords,  by  its  definiteness  and  par- 
ticularization,  a  fine  opportunity  for  attack  and  refutation. 
Why  do  not  the  critics  attack  it?  Wellhausen  merely  shakes 
his  lance  at  it.  I^e  remarks  that  the  chronology  is  carried 
forward  without  a  break  ("liickenlos"  )  from  the  creation  to  the 
exodus.  2  But  instead  of  attacking  it  as  incorrect  or  false,  he 
ventures  only  to  sneer  at  the  exactness  of  details  and  the  bold- 

1  Num.  33  :  38,  39 ;  Deut.  10 :  6.  *  Prolegomena,  pp.  7,  363. 


EXACTNESS  173 

ness  with  which  numbers  and  names  are  stated.  The  manly 
thing  for  him  to  have  done  was  either  to  point  out  errors  in  it, 
or  frankly  to  admit  its  seeming  correctness. 

But  further,  outside  of  chronological  matters,  the  statements 
of  the  Pentateuch  are  exact  and  self-consistent. 

Let  us  take  the  genealogy  of  Jacob's  family  as  an  example.^ 
Though  this  genealogical  account  has  often  been  assailed  as 
false,  or  at  least  incorrect,  it  is  at  least  entirely  and  precisely 
self-consistent.  Two  totals  are  given  in  Genesis,  ^  and  another  in 
the  Acts  by  Stephen.  ^  These  totals  are  sixt3^-six,  seventy,  and 
seventy-five.  Now  if  we  count  the  children  of  Leah  as  named 
in  the  register,  we  shall  find  the  number  to  be  thirty-three, 
as  given  ;*  so  of  the  number  of  Zilpah's  children,  sixteen ;  also 
of  the  number  of  Rachel's  children,  fourteen  ;  and  so,  too,  of 
Bilhah's  children,  seven.  If  we  add  these  numbers  together, 
we  have  seventy  (thirty-three  plus  sixteen  plus  fourteen  plus 
seven).  This  is  the  total  referred  to  in  the  declaration,  "All 
the  souls  of  the  house  of  Jacob,  which  came  into  Egypt,  were 
threescore  and  ten."  ^  But  this  total  of  seventy  includes  Joseph 
and  his  two  sons,  who  did  not  go  with  Jacob  to  Egypt,  but  were 
there  before  his  arrival.  It  includes,  also,  Jacob  himself,  who  is 
expressly  named  as  one  of  the  seventy.  ^  Deducting  these  four 
from  seventy,  we  have  sixty-six  (seventy  minus  four).  This 
accords  with  the  declaration,  "All  the  souls  that  came  with 
Jacob  into  Egypt,  which  came  put  of  his  loins,  besides  Jacob's 
son's  wives,  all  the  souls  were  threescore  and  six."''  The 
phrase  "came  with  Jacob  into  Egypt"  excludes  Joseph  and  his 
sons,  and  also  Jacob  himself,  from  the  total  sixty-six.  The  total 
seventy-five  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Pentateuch,  ^  and  therefore 
does  not  specially  concern  us.  But  if  any  one  should  refer  to  it 
as  evidence  of  Pentateuchal  inaccuracy,  we  would  remind  him 
that  Stephen  includes  in  that  total  of  seventy-five  all  the  khid^rd 
whom  Joseph  invited  to  Egypt:  "Then  sent  Joseph,  and  called 
his  father  Jacob  to  him,  and  all  his  kindred,  threescore  and 
fifteen  souls."  ^  The  phrase  "all  his  kindred"  includes  Jacob's 
sons'  wives.  If  there  were  eight  of  his  sons'  wives  in  addition 
to  Joseph's  still  living,  we  would  have,  including  Jacob,  the 
total  seventy-five  (sixty-seven  plus  eight).  Stephen  doubtless 
quoted  the  Septuagint,  which  we  shall  soon  see  was  inexact  in  its 

1  Gen.  46  :  8-27.  «  Gen.  46 :  26,  27.  =»  Acts  7 :  14.  *  Gen.  46 :  15. 

«  Gen.  46 :  27.  •  Gen.  46 :  8.  '  Gen.  46 :  26. 


1/4  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP   OP   THE    PENTATEUCH 

statements ;  but  he  corrected  them  by  including  all  of  Jacob's 
kindred  in  the  seventy-five. 

If  it  seems  strange  that  Jacob  should  be  counted  as  a  member 
of  his  own  family,  that  does  not  detract  from  the  accuracy  of 
the  account.  The  fact  that  he  is  so  counted  is  expressly  men- 
tioned, thus:  "Jacob  and  his  sons."  Accordingly,  he  must 
be  reckoned  with  lycah's  family,  in  order  to  make  the  totals 
thirty-three  and  seventy.  Thus  this  account  of  Jacob's  family  is 
precisely  self-consistent,  and  in  this  regard  is  perfectly  accurate. 
In  these  matters  the  Septuagint  text  differs  from  the  Hebrew, 
and  runs  into  self-contradiction  and  inaccuracy.  It  gives  the 
number  of  the  families  of  Leah,  Zilpah,  Rachel,  and  Bilhah 
respectively  as  thirty-three,  sixteen,  eighteen,  and  seven,  which 
make  a  total  of  seventy-four.  The  Septuagint,  however,  gives 
the  totals  sixty-six  and  seventy-five.  It  reads  that  nine  sons 
were  born  to  Joseph  in  Egypt.  ^  If  we  count  Joseph  and  these 
nine  sons  as  added  to  the  sixty-six,  we  will  have  seventy-six ; 
and  if  we  deduct  them  from  the  second  total  (seventy-five),  we 
will  have  but  sixty-five.  The  Septuagint  is  inaccurate  also  in 
saying  that  the  seventy-five  as  well  as  the  sixty -six  came  ' '  with 
Jacob  into  Egypt."  ^  In  Exodus  i:  1-5  the  Septuagint  reads 
that  '  *  all  the  souls  of  Jacob  were  seventy-five, ' '  and  yet  in  Deu- 
teronomy 10 :  22  it  reads  that  the  fathers  of  the  Israelites  ' '  went 
down  into  Egypt  with  seventy  souls,"  Thus  at  every  point  the 
Septuagint  is  inconsistent  and  inexact.  The  contrast  between 
it  and  the  Hebrew  text  in  this  respect  is  marked. 

The  accuracy  of  the  Pentateuch  in  its  references  to  Egyptian 
affairs  has  already  been  in  part  illustrated.  Many  of  the  facts 
mentioned  to  show  the  acquaintance  of  the  author  with  Egyptian 
affairs  serve  equally  well  to  prove  his  minute  accuracy.  In  this 
case,  too,  we  claim,  not,  as  in  some  of  the  foregoing  points, 
simply  precision  and  self-consistency  of  statement,  but  real  and 
absolute  accuracy.  Thus  the  allusions  to  Joseph's  shaving 
before  his  presentation  to  Pharaoh,  to  brick-making,  to  embalm- 
ing, and  other  Egyptian  affairs,  are  precisely  correct,  as  is  evinced 
by  the  statements  of  ancient  authors  and  the  investigations  of 
modern  Egyptologists. 

In  addition  to  the  illustrations  of  this  sort  above  presented, 
we  will  call  attention  to  some  others. 

The  allusion  in  the  chief  baker's  dream  to  his  carrying  three 

» Gen.  46 :  27.  =  Gen.  46 :  26,  27. 


EXACTNESS  175 

baskets  on  his  head  ^  is  in  exact  accordance  with  ancient  Egyptian 
custom.  Herodotus  mentions,  as  one  of  the  things  by  which  the 
Egyptians  were  distinguished  from  all  the  rCvSt  of  mankind,  the 
fact  that  they  carried  burdens  on  their  heads.  ^  In  Pharaoh's 
dream,  the  dependence  of  the  fertility  of  Egypt  on  the  Nile  is 
correctly  avssumed,  and  is  accurately  represented  by  the  circum- 
stance that  both  the  fat  and  the  lean  cows,  the  rank  and  good 
stalk  with  seven  full  ears  and  the  stalk  with  the  seven  thin  and 
blasted  ears,  all  came  up  out  of  the  river. ^  When  Joseph's 
brethren  dined  with  him,  they  saf^  while  eating,  which  was  in 
accordance  with  Egyptian  custom.  ^  The  Jews,  and  also  the 
Grecians  and  Romans  of  the  later  time  at  least,  reclined  at  meals. 

The  account  of  the  embalming  of  Jacob  bears  marks  of  cor- 
rectness. "And  forty  days  were  fulfilled  for  him  ;  for  so  are  ful- 
filled the  days  of  those  which  are  embalmed :  and  the  Egyptians 
mourned  for  him  threescore  and  ten  days."  ^  Herodotus  speaks 
of  the  embalming  process  lasting  seventy  days. ''  Diodorus  Siculus 
speaks  of  the  body  being  prepared  "  with  cedar  oil  and  other  sub- 
stances for  more  than  thirty  days,"  and  he  further  says  that  the 
friends  of  the  deceased  mourn  for  him  until  the  body  is  buried.  ^ 
The  author  of  Genesis,  more  accurate  than  either  of  these  classical 
writers,  mentions  both  periods,  forty  days  ( ' '  more  than  thirty 
days,"  says  Diodorus  Siculus),  and  seventy  days,  the  whole  time 
of  the  embalming,  and  also  the  time  of  the  mourning. 

The  closing  words  of  Genesis  contain  an  allusion  to  an  Egyp- 
tian custom  :  "So  Joseph  died,  being  an  hundred  and  ten  years 
old :  and  they  embalmed  him,  and  he  was  put  in  a  coflSn  in 
Egypt."  ^  The  mummy-cases  so  frequently  found  in  Egypt 
corroborate  the  truth  and  accuracy  of  this  statement. 

We  have  not  space,  nor  is  it  necessary,  to  speak  of  all,  or  of 
a  majority,  of  the  many  accurate  allusions  in  the  Pentateuch  to 
the  customs  and  affairs  of  Egypt.  In  discussing  such  points  we 
could  only  reproduce  what  has  been  said  by  others.  This  subject 
has  been  well  discussed  by  Hengstenberg.  ^  ° 

The  geographical  statements  and  allusions  of  the  Pentateuch 

have  of  late  years  received  many  confirmations.     Their  accuracy 

has  in  most  cases  been  demonstrated.     In  no  instance  have  they 

been  falsified.     Goshen,  On,  Rameses,  Pithom,  Succoth,  Etham, 

Migdol,  and  Pi-hahiroth  have  been  identified.     The  remains  of 

1  Gen.  40 :  16.  2  2:  32.  3  (jen.  41 :  2-6.  *  Gen.  43  :  33. 

6  Wilkinson,  ATuAeni  Egyptians,  Vol.  I.,  p.  167.  « Gen.  50  :  3.  ^ 2  :  86. 

8 1 :  91.  »  Gen.  50  :  26.  ^'>  Egypt  and  the  Books  of  Moses, 


176  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

Pithom,  one  of  the  store-cities  built  by  the  Israelites  for  Pharaoh, 
have  been  discovered,  consisting  of  huge  walls  built  of  bricks 
made,  some  with  straw,  and  some  without.  ^  The  route  of  the 
Israelites  from  Rameses  to  the  Red  Sea  has  been  determined.  ^ 
The  Israelites  reached  the  sea  by  a  three-days'  march,  and  it  is 
ascertained  that  the  distance  from  Memphis  to  Pi-hahiroth  is 
just  three  days'  journey. ^  It  is  in  evidence  that  the  allusions  to 
places  in  the  account  of  the  march  from  the  Red  Sea  to  Sinai  — 
the  wilderness  of  Shur,  in  which  they  went  three  daj^s  without 
water;  Marah,  with  its  bitter  waters;  Blim,  with  its  twelve 
wells  and  seventy  palm  trees  ;  the  wilderness  of  Sin  ;  Rephidim, 
"where  there  was  no  water  for  the  people  to  drink  " ;  and,  finall}^ 
Sinai,  the  mount  of  God — the  statements  and  allusions  in  regard  to 
these  places  have  led  scientific  observers  and  experienced  travelers 
to  declare,  after  careful  investigation,  that  "the  physical  facts 
accord  with  the  inspired  account  "and  also  prove  ' '  the  accuracy  of 
Scripture  details. ' '  ^  Humboldt  declared  that  the  historical  narra- 
tives of  the  Old  Testament  ( among  which  are,  of  course,  embraced 
those  of  the  Pentateuch)  * '  are  most  true  to  nature,  a  point  on  which 
the  unanimous  testimony  of  modern  travelers  may  be  received  as 
conclusive,  owing  to  the  inconsiderable  changes  effected  in  the 
course  of  ages  in  the  manners  and  habits  of  a  nomadic  people. ' '  '^ 
This  "unanimous  testimony  of  modern  travelers"  to  the  truth 
of  the  historical  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  the  entire 
Old  Testament,  as  well  as  the  testimony  of  the  archseologists 
and  the  monuments,  "the  higher  critics"  almost  entirely  ignore. 
This  policy  of  prudence  or  of  contemptuous  silence  Professor 
W.  R.  Smith  broke  through  so  far  as  to  venture  to  say  that  "the 
Pentateuch  displays  an  exact  topographical  knowledge  of  Pales- 
tine, but  by  no  means  so  exact  a  knowledge  of  the  wilderness  of 
the  wandering."  He  further  declares  that  "geographers  are 
unable  to  assign  with  certainty  the  site  of  Mount  Sinai,  because 
the  narrative  has  none  of  that  topographical  color  which  the 
story  of  an  eye-witness  is  sure  to  possess."  ^  But  Professor 
Smith  here  deals  only  in  assertion.  He  cites  no  authorities  and 
gives  no  proofs.  He  makes  no  specifications,  except  to  say  that 
geographers  cannot  agree  as  to  the  site  of  Mount  Sinai.  It  is, 
however,  almost  universally  agreed  that  the  mount  called  by  the 

*  Naville,  Store-city  of  Pithom.  and  the  Moute  of  the  Exodics,  pp.  11,  24-31. 

*  Professor  E.  H.  Palmer,  Desert  of  the  Exodus,  p.  224. 

3  Idem,  p.  230.  *  Cosmos,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  412,  413. 

s  Old  Testament  in  the  Jeioish  Church,  p.  324. 


EXACTNESS  177 

natives  "Jebel  Musa"  is  tlie  ancient  Sinai.  Lepsius,  indeed, 
opposed  this  view,  but  says,  "I  am  not  aware  that  there  are  any 
modern  travelers  and  savants  who  have  thrown  doubts  on  the 
correctness  of  this  assumption."  ^  Thus  I^epsius  stood  alone. 
Professor  Sayce  has  lately  opposed  the  prevalent  view,  but  he 
admits  that  "it  ma}^  seem  a  pity  to  disturb  a  traditional  faith 
which  has  supported  so  many  tourists  among  the  desolate  wadies 
and  monotonous  scenery  of  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula. ' '  -  He  has  not, 
however,  succeeded  in  producing  an}^  * '  disturbance, ' '  for  he  speaks 
not  from  personal  obvServation,  and  the  testimony  of  nearly  all  the 
travelers  and  explorers,  except  that  of  Lepsius,  is  against  him. 

Now  as  to  the  opinion  of  Professor  Smith  that  the  Pentateuch 
does  not  indicate  an  exact  knowledge  of  the  wilderness  of  the 
wandering  on  the  part  of  its  author,  we  deem  it  a  full  refutation 
to  cite  the  testimony  of  a  trustworthy  and  competent  eye-witness. 
Professor  Palmer,  of  England,  professor  of  Arabic  at  Cambridge, 
had  so  familiar  an  acquaintance  with  that  language  that  he  could 
converse  freely  with  the  native  Bedouin  of  the  desert.  He  made 
two  visits  to  and  through  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula.  He  accompanied 
the  Ordnance  Survey  Expedition  to  the  peninsula  in  1868-69.  He 
also  visited  Et  Tih,  Idumea,  and  Moab  in  1869-70,  on  behalf  of 
the  Exploration  Fund.  He  declares  that  he  had  the  company 
of  scientific  men  and  experienced  explorers,  and  that  he  wandered 
over  a  greater  portion  of  the  desert  than  had  been  previously 
explored.  This  man  of  learning  and  science,  who  could  speak  the 
Arabic  like  a  native,  and  who  traveled  through  the  desert  in  vari- 
ous directions,  seeing  with  his  own  eyes  the  sands  and  the  rocks, 
the  streams  and  wadies,  hills,  and  mountains,  and  plains,  had  no 
difiiculty  in  following  the  track  of  the  Israelites  and  in  identifying 
the  mount  of  the  law.  His  testimony  is  that  the  desert  is  a  proof 
and  a  monument,  not  only  of  the  truth  of  the  general  statements 
of  the  Pentateuch,  but  also  of  the  accuracy  of  the  details.  One 
of  his  closing  declarations  is  as  follows :  "We  cannot  ever  hope 
to  identify  all  the  stations  and  localities  mentioned  in  the  Bible 
account  of  the  Exodus,  but  enough  has  been  recovered  to  enable 
us  to  trace  the  more  important  lines  of  march,  and  to  follow  the 
Israelites  in  their  several  journeys  from  Egypt  to  Sinai,  from 
Sinai  to  Kadesh,  and  from  thence  to  the  promised  land."* 

>  Egypt,  Ethiopia,  and  the  Peninsula  of  Sinai,  p.  532. 
^Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,  p.  271. 
*  Desert  of  the  Exodus,  p.  434. 
12 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  LEGISLATION 

The  analysts  maintain  that  the  Pentateuchal  laws  give  evi- 
dence of  a  post-Mosaic  origin.  Kuenen  declares  that  these  laws 
differ  so  much  that  they  "must,  in  all  probability,  be  separated 
from  each  other  by  a  space,  not  of  years,  but  of  centuries."^ 

I.  Among  the  laws  claimed  to  be  contradictory  are  those 
which  relate  to  the  place  of  worship.  Kuenen  claims  that  Exo- 
dus 20 :  24  authorizes  the  offering  of  sacrifices  at  different  places, 
and  that  therefore  it  conflicts  with  many  passages  in  Deuter- 
onomy and  also  with  Leviticus  17 :  1-9  and  Exodus  25  sqq. 

In  regard  to  this  passage,  ^  it  is  to  be  observed : 

(i)  That  if  it  does  authorize  a  plurality  of  sanctuaries,  it 
contradicts  all  the  succeeding  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.  Kuenen 
sets  against  it  not  only  Deuteronomy,^  but  also  Leviticus  17:  1-9 
and  Exodus  25  sqq.  He  might  have  added  that  the  Book  of 
Numbers  knows  but  one  altar  and  one  place  of  worship.  If  the 
claim  of  Kuenen  and  other  analysts  is  well  founded,  what  a 
blunder  was  committed  by  the  writer  of  Exodus  in  placing  con- 
tradictory laws  in  the  same  book !  Even  the  supposed  redactor, 
who  so  often  comes  to  the  help  of  these  critics,  is  to  be  blamed 
for  not  removing  the  contradiction,  as  he  might  have  done  by  the 
alteration  of  a  word. 

( 2 )  The  hypothesis  of  the  analysts  is  that  the  middle  books 
of  the  Pentateuch  were  gotten  up  during  the  exile  or  after  it, 
with  a  special  view  to  the  establishment  of  the  priestly  code. 
It  is  admitted  that  Leviticus  and  Numbers  harmonize  with 
Deuteronomy  in  regard  to  the  unity  of  worship.  Is  it  not 
strange  that  these  exilic  writers  should  have- allowed  Exodus 
to  contradict  the  other  books  and  also  itself  on  this  vital  point  ? 

(3)  But  the  conclusive  answer  to  the  arguments  and  assump- 
tions of  the  analytics  on  this  subject  is  this,  that  Exodus  20 :  24 
does  not  authorize  a  plurality  of  sanctuaries.     Though  the  pas- 

1  Hexateuch,  p.  25.  «  Ex.  20 :  24.  3  Hezateuch,  pp.  24,  25. 

178 


THE  IvEGISI^ATION  1 79 

sage  does,  indeed,  speak  (in  the  English  version)  of  a  plurality 
oi places  in  which  God  would  "record  his  name,"  and  at  which 
sacrifice  was  to  be  offered,  yet  it  does  not  say  that  God  would 
record  his  name  in  different  places  at  the  same  time,  nor  that 
there  should  be  an  altar  in  more  places  than  one  at  the  same  ti7ne. 
As  the  Israelites  went  from  place  to  place  during  the  forty  years' 
wandering,  God  indicated,  by  the  manifestation  of  his  presence, 
the  spot  where  he  was  to  be  worshiped.  A  more  literal  rendering 
of  the  passage  would  be,  "in  every  place  [Qto/^H'^D^]  where  I 

I     T    -  T    : 

record  my  name."  God  recorded  his  name  in  many  places  dur- 
ing the  wandering  in  the  desert,  but  never  in  two  places  at  the 
same  time. 

( 4 )  The  regulations  concerning  unity  of  worship  are  more 
definite  and  emphatic  in  Deuteronomy  than  in  Exodus  and  the 
other  middle  books,  and  this  fact  harmonizes  with  the  traditional 
theory  ;  for  when  the  Israelites  were  encamped  together,  within 
a  short  distance  of  the  altar  and  the  tabernacle,  and  within  sight 
of  the  pillar  of  cloud  by  day  and  the  pillar  of  fire  by  night,  it 
was  sufficient  to  tell  them  to  offer  sacrifices  only  in  the  places 
where  God  manifested  his  presence.  But  when  they  were  about 
to  enter  Canaan,  where  they  would  no  longer  behold  either  the 
cloud  or  the  fire,  and  where  they  would  live,  many  of  them,  at  a 
distance  from  the  altar,  the  ark,  and  the  sanctuary,  the  great 
law-giver  recognized  the  propriety  of  expressing  more  clearly 
and  urgently  the  duty  of  worshiping  God  at  the  one  place  which 
he  himself  should  choose. 

2.  Kuenen  ( also  Wellhausen  and  others)  claims  that  Exodus 
and  Deuteronomy  conflict  with  lycviticus  and  Numbers,  inas- 
much as  the  former  two  books  mention  but  three  yearly  feasts,^ 
while  the  latter  two  mention  seven. 2 

But  is  this  a  contradiction  1  The  negative  view  is  favored  by 
the  following  considerations : 

( I )  It  is  very  improbable  that  the  men  who  are  supposed  to 
have  made  the  Pentateuch  what  it  is,  and  who  are  anxious  about 
the  establishment  of  ritual  services,  would  either  insert  contra- 
dictions, or  allow  contradictions  to  remain,  in  regulations  which 
they  claimed  Moses  had  enacted  concerning  religious  festivals. 
These  authors,  revisers,  and  redactors  must  have  regarded  the 
Pentateuchal  books  and  laws  as  harmonious. 

»  Ex.  23 :  14-17  ;  34  :  18-24  ;  13  :  3-10  ;  Deut.  16  :  1-16. 
«  Lev.  23 :  1-44  ;  Num.  28 :  18,  25,  26  ;  29  :  1,  7,  9. 


l80  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE)    PENTATEUCH 

(2)  Exodus  and  Deuteronomy  are  merely  silent  in  regard  to 
four  of  the  feasts.  Silence  is  not  contradiction.  The  silence  in 
this  case  is  satisfactorily  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  Exodus  ^ 
and  Deuteronomy  2  mention  only  the  feasts  at  which  all  the 
males  were  required  to  be  present. 

3.  Kuenen  further  maintains  that  Deuteronomy  contradicts 
Exodus,  I^eviticus,  and  Numbers  in  regard  to  the  lycvites.^  His 
contention  is,  that  according  to  Deuteronomy  all  the  I^evites 
were  priests,  while  according  to  the  middle  books  only  Aaron 
and  his  sons  were  priests. 

But,  as  has  frequently  been  pointed  out,  in  Exodus,  Leviticus, 
and  Numbers  the  Levites  are  appointed  and  set  apart  to  the  serv- 
ice of  the  sanctuary,*  and  thus  are  really  made  priests.  In  this 
way  is  conferred  on  the  Levites  as  extensive  a  grant  of  priestly 
rights  and  prerogatives  as  is  found  in  Deuteronomy.  There  is, 
however,  this  difference,  that  in  the  middle  books  the  preemi- 
nence of  Aaron  and  his  sons  among  the  priests  is  distinctly 
brought  to  view,  while  Deuteronomy  on  this  point  is  silent. 
Here  again  the  analysts  construe  silence  as  contradiction. 

4.  Another  divergence  is  claimed  in  the  tithe  laws  as  con- 
tained in  Leviticus  27:32,  Numbers  18:21-32,  and  those 
contained  in  Deuteronomy  14:  22;  26:  12-15. 

In  order  to  make  out  this  divergence,  the  critic  is  under  the 
necessity  of  putting  an  interpretation  on  these  laws  which  was 
rejected  by  the  Jews,  as  is  shown  by  Tobit^  and  Josephus.^ 
But  it  is  an  easy  thing  for  Kuenen  to  say  that  Tobit,  Josephus, 
and  all  the  Jews,  including  Solomon  and  Daniel,  misunderstood 
tlieii^  tithe  law. 

5.  It  is  claimed  that  the  laws  in  regard  to  firstlings  of  cattle 
conflict  with  one  another.^  This  claim,  however,  is  only  another 
example  of  silence  treated  as  contradiction. 

{a)  Exodus  13:  12,  13  and  34:  19,  20  set  apart  the  male  first- 
lings of  beasts  to  the  Lord,  the  firstling  of  an  ass  to  be  redeemed, 
or  to  have  its  neck  broken. 

{b)  Exodus  22  :  30  requires  the  firstlings  of  oxen  and  of  sheep 
to  be  given  to  the  Lord  on  the  eighth  daj'. 

{c)  Deuteronomy  15  :  19-23  demands  that  all  the  firstling  males 
of  the  herd  and  flock  (except  the  defective  and  the  deformed)  be 
sanctified  unto  the  Lord,  and  be  eaten  at  the  sanctuary. 

» Ex.  23 :  17.  ^  Deut.  16 :  16.  ^  Hexateuch,  p.  25. 

*  Num.  1 :  49,  50  ;  3 :  5,  6  ;  8  :  10-16.  ^  1 ;  6-8.  «  AntiquUies,  4:8:8. 


the:  i^egislation  i8i 

(d)  Numbers  i8 :  15-18  provides  that  all  firstlings,  both  of 
men  and  beasts,  brought  unto  the  Lord  shall  belong  to  Aaron  ; 
the  unclean  firstlings  to  be  redeemed;  the  firstlings  of  cows, 
sheep,  and  goats  not  to  be  redeemed,  but  their  blood  to  be 
sprinkled  on  the  altar,  their  fat  to  be  burned,  the  wave  breast 
and  right  shoulder  to  be  given  to  the  priests. 

On  the  above  passages  we  remark  : 

(i)  That  what  is  prescribed  in  one  is  not  forbidden  or 
repealed  in  any  of  the  others.  The  only  way  to  prove  incon- 
sistency between  them  is  to  construe  silence  as  contradiction, 
the  kind  of  reasoning  to  which  the  analysts  so  frequently 
resort. 

( 2 )  Why  the  firstlings,  though  mainly  eaten  as  food  by  the 
people,  were  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  Lord  and  also  to 
the  priests,  is  of  easy  explanation.  These  firstlings  belonged 
to  the  Lord  as  sacrificial  victims,  their  blood  and  their  fat  being 
offered  on  the  altar.  They  belonged  also  as  sacrificial  victims 
to  the  priests,  who  offered  them,  and  to  whom  were  given  the 
wave  breast  and  right  shoulder.  The  remaining  portions  were 
devoted  to  the  Lord's  feast,  of  which  all  classes  partook.  There 
is  no  contradiction  here,  except  to  those  who  are  anxious  to 
find  it. 

6.  It  is  further  claimed  that  there  is  divergence  among  the 
regulations  in  regard  to  the  maintenance  of  the  Levites.  Num- 
bers 35 :  1-8  provides  that  forty-eight  cities  should  be  assigned 
them,  and  Joshua  21  :  1-42  relates  how  this  was  done.  Kuenen 
does  not  find  any  contradictory  regulation,  but  he  refers  to  pas- 
sages which  speak  of  the  Levites  as  sojourning  in  other  cities, 
and  which  commend  them,  along  with  widows  and  orphans,  as 
objects  of  charity ;  and  then  he  challenges  any  one  to  explain 
"how  the  law-giver,  after  having  made,  in  the  fortieth  3^ear, 
such  ample  provision  for  the  support  of  the  priests  and  Levites, 
could  assume  a  few  days  later  that  his  injunctions  would  not 
be  carried  out,  and  that  the  Levites  would  wander  about  in 
destitution."^ 

We  reply :  ( i )  That  not  all  the  forty-eight  Levitical  cities  were 
situated  in  one  tribe  or  region,  but  thirteen  cities  were  assigned 
out  of  Judah,  Simeon,  and  Benjamin ;  ten  out  of  Ephraim,  Dan, 
and  Manasseh  ;  thirteen  out  of  Issachar,  Asher,  and  Naphtali,  and 
the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh;   and  twelve  out  of  Reuben,   Gad, 

» Hezateuch,  p.  31. 


l82  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OI^^   THE    PENTATEUCH 

and  Zebulon.^  The  Levites  —  twenty-three  thousand  males  a 
month  old  and  upward,  ^  forty-six  thousand  all  told — were  not 
confined  to  these  forty-eight  cities,  but  were  scattered  everywhere 
as  priests,  scribes,  teachers,  and  in  other  capacities. 

(2)  Only  cities,  not  farms,  were  assigned  to  the  Ivcvites.  A 
family  that  owned  only  a  town-lot  and  a  house,  or  only  a  town- 
lot  without  a  house,  might  be  very  destitute.  "Ample  pro- 
vision," says  Kuenen.  One  wonders  where  he  got  his  ideas  on 
this  subject.  He  seems  to  forget  that  men,  women,  and  children 
need  food  and  clothing. 

7.  Contradiction  is  claimed  in  regard  to  the  age  at  which  the 
Levites  entered  on  their  priestly  duties.  Numbers  4 :  3  fixes  the 
age  at  thirty  years ;  Numbers  8 :  24,  at  twenty-five.  Between 
these  passages,  as  we  have  them,  there  is  a  discrepancy.  This 
discrepancy  is  cited  by  Kuenen  to  disprove  Mosaic  authorship.  ^ 

But,  ( I )  it  is  possible  that  the  discrepancy  arose  from  an  error 
in  transcription.  The  Septuagint  has  the  number  twenty-five  in 
both  passages.  In  such  a  case  many  of  the  analysts,  if  they 
thought  it  would  advance  their  case,  would  assume  that  the 
authors  of  that  version  followed  a  better  text  than  that  contained 
in  our  Hebrew  Bibles  of  the  present  day.     And  perhaps  they  did. 

(2)  After  all,  the  difference  in  the  numbers  is  probably  not  the 
result  of  a  various  reading,  or  of  any  kind  of  error,  but  of 
the  thoughtful  precaution  of  the  law-giver.  The  fourth  chap- 
ter has  reference  to  the  duties  of  the  lycvites  in  taking  care  of 
the  tabernacle  on  the  march  ;  the  eighth,  to  the  ordinary  service 
of  the  tabernacle.  The  minimum  age  for  the  former  might  be 
thirty  years,  and  for  the  latter  twenty-five.  After  the  tabernacle 
was  fixed  permanently  at  Jerusalem,  the  minimum  age  was 
reduced  to  twenty.* 

(3)  But  the  alleged  discrepancy  is  not  between  different 
authors  and  different  books.  According  to  the  showing  of  the 
analytic  critics,  the  discrepancy,  whether  real  or  only  apparent, 
is  between  the  statements  of  the  author  whom  they  call  P.^ 
They  virtually  say  that  since  the  statements  conflict,  therefore  not 
Moses,  but  P,  wrote  them.  The  argument  is  worthless,  except 
on  the  ground  that  Moses  was  plenarily  inspired  and  infallible. 
The  analyst,  of  course,  says  that  though  both  passages  were 
written  by  P,  the  number  in  the  one  or  the  other  has  been 

1  Josh.  21 :  1-42.  2  Num.  26 :  62.  ^  Hexateuch,  pp.  25,  31,  308. 

*  I.  Chr.  23  :  27.         ^  Die  Heilige  Schrift  des  Alten  Testaments^  Kautzsch-Socin. 


THE  LEGISLATION  1 83 

altered  by  a  later  hand.  But  here  is  involved  the  groundless 
assumption  that  if  Moses  were  the  original  author  that  later 
hand  could  not  have  done  its  work. 

8.  Kuenen  claims  that  the  laws  in  Exodus  21  :  1-6  and  Deu- 
teronomy 15:  12-18  in  regard  to  the  manumission  of  Hebrew 
servants  are  opposed  to  lycviticus  25:  39-43.1  He  declares  that 
the  former  passages  limit  the  term  of  service  of  the  Hebrew 
servant  to  six  years,  and  that  the  latter  extends  it  to  the  year  of 
jubilee. 

But  the  former  passages  do  not  limit  the  term  of  service  to  six 
years.  They  expressly  provide  that  the  service  might  continue 
after  the  six  years  indefinitely,  or,  as  our  English  version  has  it, 
forever.  Leviticus  25 :  39-43  fixes  the  utmost  limit  at  the  year 
of  jubilee.  Should  a  man  emphasize  the  English  auxiliary  shall 
in  the  clause,  "Shall  serve  thee  unto  the  year  of  jubilee  "  (for- 
tieth verse),  he  will  get  a  meaning  that  is  not  in  the  original 
Hebrew.  In  this  case,  as  in  many  others,  the  contradiction  is 
found  only  by  those  who  desire  to  find  it. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  main  arguments  drawn  from  the 
Pentateuchal  laws  to  disprove  their  INIosaic  origin,  we  proceed  to 
take  up  the  arguments  drawn  from  the  same  source  in  favor  of 
the  other  side  of  the  question. 

I.  One  important  consideration  is,  that  all  these  laws  purport 
to  come,  in  the  phraseology  of  Kuenen,  "from  Moses  and  the 
desert."  In  the  legislative  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  we  have 
the  ever-recurring  formula,  "And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses, 
saying."  A  very  large  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  especially  of 
Deuteronomy,  claims  to  have  been  actually  delivered  by  Moses  in 
oral  discourse  to  the  Israelites.  This  is  true  especially  of  the 
legal  enactments. 

These  facts  force  upon  us  one  of  two  conclusions :  either  Moses 
is  the  author  of  the  legislation  attributed  to  him  and  the  ana- 
lytic hypothesis  must  be  abandoned,  or  the  Pentateuch  contains 
a  vast  amount  of  falsehood.  It  is  of  little  avail  to  attempt  to 
disguise  the  latter  alternative  under  the  euphemism  of  legal 
fiction  or  pio^is  fraud.  These  phrases  exclude  the  idea  of  mere 
mistake.  They  mean,  not  that  somebod}-  blundered,  but  that 
somebody  lied.  Besides  the  charge  of  falsehood  in  putting 
words  into  the  mouth  of  Moses  which  he  never  uttered,  and  in 
attributing  to  him  laws  which  he  never  enacted,  there  is  the  fur- 

'  HezateuAih,  pp.  25,  31. 


l84  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

tlier  charge  of  falsehood  in  the  ascription  of  these  words  and  laws 
to  the  Almighty.  The  formula  so  often  employed,  "The  Lord 
spake  unto  Moses,  saying,"  means  that  God  in  some  supernat- 
ural, or  at  least  special,  way,  communicated  his  will  to  Moses, 
and  that  the  laws  which  Moses  enacted  came  from  God.  The 
denial  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  these  laws  is  a  denial  of 
their  divine  authorship  as  well.  In  every  case,  then,  in  which 
the  analytic  critic  charges  falsehood  on  the  record  in  ascribing  a 
law  to  Moses,  he  must  charge  further  falsehood  on  the  record  in 
its  representing  the  law  as  coming  from  God.  In  other  words, 
the  charge  involved  in  the  analytic  hypothesis  against  the  legis- 
lative portions  of  the  Pentateuch  is  that  of  wholesale  lying. 
Over  and  over  again — times,  indeed,  too  numerous  to  be 
counted,  the  declaration  is  made  that  God,  through  Moses, 
gave  to  the  chosen  people  laws  which  the  critics  claim  had  no 
existence  till  many  centuries  after  Mosaic  times.  According, 
then,  to  the  analytic  view,  every  such  declaration  is  false.  Such 
views,  of  course,  prepare  the  way  for  and  involve  far-reaching 
skepticism.  Accordingly  we  find  the  leaders  of  the  analytic 
school — Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  Reuss,  Graf— maintaining  that 
the  whole  account  of  the  tabernacle  is  untrue,  the  exodus  largely 
a  sham,  and  the  decalogue  a  purely  human  invention  of  post- 
Mosaic  origin.  The  only  way  logically  to  avoid  these  destructive 
conclusions  is  to  accept  the  record  that  the  Pentateuchal  laws 
came  from  Moses  and  from  God. 

2.  The  literary  presentment  of  these  laws  indicates  that  they 
originated  in  the  wilderness,  and  therefore  in  the  time  of  Moses. 

It  is  indeed  claimed  by  the  analysts  that  these  laws,  including 
the  decalogue,  presuppose  the  settlement  in  Canaan  and  a  popu- 
lation engaged  in  agricultural  pursuits.  The  expression,  "with- 
in thy  gales,^'  in  the  fourth  commandment,^  and  the  regulations 
in  regard  to  leprous  houses,^  are  claimed  as  showing  that  the 
Israelites  at  the  time  of  enactment  were  dwelling  in  houses  and 
towns.  It  is  freely  admitted  that  the  ten  commandments  and 
the  Pentateuchal  laws  in  general  were  intended  for  people  living 
on  farms,  in  houses,  and  in  towns  and  cities.  The  Israelites  had 
been  living  in  houses  up  to  within  a  short  time  before  the  deca- 
logue and  the  most  of  the  laws  were  given  them.  They  had 
houses  in  Egypt,  and  dwelt  in  towns  and  villages,  and  on  farms 
and  pasture  lands.    Their  law-giver  in  the  wilderness  did  not 

1  Ex.  20 :  10.  8Lev.  14 :  33-53. 


the;  legisi^ation  185 

forget,  nor  allow  them  to  forget,  that  they  were  to  be  per- 
manently settled  in  Canaan,  and  that  their  sojourning  in  the 
wilderness  was  to  be  comparatively  brief.  This  is  brought  to 
view  in  the  regulations  concerning  leprous  houses.  The  pre- 
amble is  as  follows:  "When  ye  be  come  into  the  land  of 
Canaan,  which  I  give  to  you  for  a  possession,  and  I  put  the 
plague  of  lepros}'  in  a  house  of  the  land  of  your  possession."^ 
Here  it  appears  on  the  face  of  the  law  that  the  Israelites  at  the 
time  of  its  enactment  were  not  yet  settled  in  Canaan,  and  were 
living  in  tents — at  least  were  not  living  in  houses.  Yet  this 
very  law  has  been  adduced  to  show  that  the  Israelites  were 
already  settled  in  Canaan. 2  There  are  also  some  other  laws  that 
could  not  be  applied  in  the  wilderness,  and  were  not  intended  to 
come  into  operation  until  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  such  as 
the  laws  in  regard  to  lands,  landmarks,  first-fruits,  newly-built 
houses,  houses  in  walled  cities  and  houses  in  villages,  newly- 
planted  vineyards,  and  the  seventh-year  rest  for  the  land.  All 
such  laws  and  regulations  were  intended  to  be  operative  among 
the  Israelites,  not  in  the  wilderness,  but  when  settled  in  the  land 
of  promise.  The  prospective  aim  of  such  laws  is  often  expressly 
pointed  out,  as,  for  example,  the  law  in  regard  to  landmarks : 
"Thou  shalt  not  remove  thy  neighbor's  landmark,  which  they 
of  old  time  have  set  in  thine  inheritance,  which  thou  shalt 
inherit  in  the  land  that  the  lyord  thy  God  giveth  thee  to  possess 
it." 2  After  all  that  the  critics  have  said  about  this  passage, 
the  fact  remains  that  the  phraseology  employed  in  it  implies 
that  the  Israelites  were  not  living  on  separated  lands,  but  ex- 
pected soon  to  be.*  Thus  the  laws  scattered  through  the  Penta- 
teuch, though  in  many  cases  plainly  intended  to  be  operative 
only  in  the  future  and  among  an  agricultural  people,  unmistak- 
ably point  to  the  nomadic  condition  of  the  Israelites  in  the 
wilderness  as  existent  at  the  time  of  enactment. 

The  style  and  terms  of  the  laws  indicate  the  Israelites,  at  the 
time  of  enactment,  to  be  on  the  way  from  Egypt  to  Canaan. 

(i)    Israel  is  in  the  wilderness  :  Leviticus  16  :  10,  21,  22. 

(2)  Lsrael  is  in  camp:  Leviticus  4: 12,  21  ;  6:11;  8:  17;  9: 11 ; 
10:4,  5;  13-  46;  14:  3.  8;  16:  26,  2-],  28;  17:  3;  24:  10,  14,  23. 
The  burnt-ofifering  was  to  be  carried  without  the  cainp ;  the  sin- 
offering  also  was  to  be  carried  and  burned  ivithout  the  camp;  the 
ashes  from  the  altar  were  to  be  carried  without  the  ca7np ;  the 

1  Lev.  14  :  34.        «  Kuenen,  Hexateuch,  p.  20.        ^  Deut.  19 :  14.       *  See  p.  56. 


l86  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OP   THE    PENTATEUCH 

leper  was  to  stay  without  the  camp ;  the  priest  was  to  visit  him 
without  the  camp ;  and  thus  throughout  the  lyevitical  legislation 
the  Israelites  are  contemplated  as  occupying  a  camp. 

(3)  The  Pentateuchal  laws  contemplate  the  settlement  in 
Canaan  as  being,  at  the  time  of  their  enactment,  a  future  event. 
**When  ye  be  come  into  the  land  of  Canaan,  which  I  give  to  you 
for  a  possession. "1  "And  when  ye  shall  come  into  the  land, 
and  shall  have  planted  all  manner  of  trees  for  food."^  "When 
ye  come  into  the  land  which  I  give  you,  then  shall  the  land  keep 
a  sabbath  unto  the  Lord."^  "When  thou  art  come  unto  the 
land  which  the  Ivord  thy  God  giveth  thee,  and  shalt  possess  it."* 
See  also  Deuteronomy  15  :  4,  7  ;  12:9;  I^eviticus  18 :  3  ;  Deuter- 
onomy 19:  I. 

(4)  At  the  time  of  the  enactment  of  these  laws,  the  tabernacle 
and  God's  presence  and  worship  had  no  fixed  abiding-place.  "In 
all  places  [in  every  place]  where  I  record  my  name  I  will  come 
unto  thee,  and  I  will  bless  thee."  ^  The  Levitical  law  required 
sacrifices  to  be  brought  to  the  tabernacle,  wherever  it  might  be, 
and  this  requisition  was  declared  to  be  a  statute  forever  unto  the 
Israelites  throughout  their  generations.^  Again  and  again  is  it 
indicated  in  Deuteronomy  that  God  had  not  yet  chosen  the  one 
place  of  central  worship.  "But  unto  the  place  which  the  Lord 
your  God  shall  choose  out  of  all  your  tribes  to  put  his  name 
there,  even  unto  his  habitation  shall  ye  seek,  and  thither  thou 
shalt  come."  '  See  also  Deuteronomy  12:  11,  14,  18,  26;  14:  23 ; 
15 : 20;  16: 2  ;  17: 8  ;  18 :  6;  23  :  16 ;  26: 2  ;  31 :  11. 

( 5 )  The  regulations  in  Exodus  concerning  the  consecration 
of  priests  mention  by  name  Aaron,  which  shows  that  these  regula- 
tions were  established  before  Aaron's  death. ^  Also  in  Numbers, 
in  connection  with  the  regulations  concerning  the  lighting  of  the 
lamps  in  the  tabernacle,  the  consecration  of  the  Levites,  and  other 
matters,  the  name  of  Aaron  is  expressly  mentioned. 

Thus  the  style  and  terms  of  the  laws  and  regulations  contained 
in  these  last  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch  indicate  that  they  were 
enacted  and  published  when  the  Israelites  were  in  the  wilder- 
ness, unless  the  suggestive  marks  above  pointed  out  were  placed 
upon  them  with  the  intention  of  deceiving. 

3.  Many  of  the  Pentateuchal  laws  were  suited  only  to  Mosaic 
times. 

1  Lev.  14 :  34.  «  Lev.  19 :  23.  ^  Lev.  25 :  2.  «  Deut.  17  :  14. 

6  Ex.  20 :  24.  •  Lev.  17 :  3-9.  »  Deut.  12 :  5.  »  Ex.  40 :  13. 


THE  LEGISLATION  187 

We  have  shown  above  that  these  laws  were  just  such  as  might 
be  expected  from  Moses  in  the  wilderness.  Laws  are  made  for 
the  present  and  the  future,  and  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  were 
adapted  to  the  circumstances  of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert,  and 
also  to  their  future  condition  in  Canaan.  The  point  we  now 
make  is,  that  if  these  laws  originated  in  the  times,  or  near  the 
times,  claimed  by  the  analysts,  then  whoever  got  them  up  must 
have  framed  laws  neither  for  the  present  nor  for  the  future,  but 
for  the  past, —  an  absurdity  which  no  statesman,  nor  perhaps 
anybody  else,  ever  committed. 

( 1 )  The  law  of  the  king  is,  according  to  the  analytic  theories, 
precisely  of  this  character,  and  carries  a  lie  on  its  face  besides. 

(a)  It  claims  to  have  been  enacted  by  Moses  before  the 
entrance  into  Canaan.  "When  thou  art  come  unto  the  land 
which  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee,  and  shalt  possess  it."^ 
This  preamble  is  a  lie,  if  the  law  which  follows  is  not  of 
Mosaic  origin. 

(b)  The  provision  that  the  Israelites  should  appoint  as  king 
only  the  one  whom  God  should  choose,  and  one  of  their  own 
nation,^  is  out  of  place  and  absurd  if  enacted  in  the  time  of 
Josiah,  or  near  that  time.  For  long  before  that  time  David  had 
been  made  king  by  divine  appointment  and  popular  choice,  and 
his  descendants,  by  the  same  right,  had  long  reigned  in  Jerusalem. 

(c)  That  the  king  should  not  lead  the  people  back  into  Egypt^ 
is  another  useless  and  absurd  law,  if  not  enacted  till  near  the 
close  of  the  monarchy  ;  for  all  danger  of  a  return  to  Eg3^pt  had 
ceased  man}'  centuries  before. 

{d)  The  provision  against  the  multiplication  of  horses  and 
wives  by  the  prospective  king  *  was  entirely  in  place,  if  enacted 
by  Moses  ;  for  he  had  seen  the  abuses  and  evils  of  monarchy  in 
the  land  of  Eg3^pt. 

(<?)  The  fact  that  Samuel  did  not  refer  to  this  law  of  the  king 
in  resisting  the  demands  of  the  people  does  not  prove  that  he 
was  ignorant  of  it.  The  law  did  not  suit  his  purpose.  His 
effort  was  to  prevent  the  appointment  of  a  king  altogether.  The 
people,  however,  in  urging  this  measure  on  Samuel,  quoted  this 
law  as  in  their  favor —  "Nay  ;  but  we  will  have  a  king  over  us  ; 
that  we  also  may  be  like  all  the  nations."  ^ 

(2)  The  laws  of  war,   as  contained  in   Deuteronomy, «   are 

»  Deut.  17  :  14.  *  Deut.  17  :  15.  ^  Deut.  17  ;  16.  *  Deut.  17 :  16, 17. 

« I.  Sam.  8 :  19,  20 ;  Deut.  17 :  14.  «  Deut.  20  : 1-20. 


1 88  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

suited  to  the  time  of  the  conquest,  but  not  to  the  later  years  of 
the  monarchy. 

(a)  These  laws  speak  of  the  conquest  as  future — the  nations 
of  Canaan  as  yet  to  be  conquered  and  destroyed.  ^  If  this  war 
code  did  not  originate,  as  it  purports,  in  Mosaic  times,  the  law 
demanding  the  extermination  of  these  nations  must  have  been 
inserted  for  the  purpose  of  deception. 

{d)  The  distinction  between  cities  distant  and  near,  the  regu- 
lations in  regard  to  captives  and  tributaries,  and  the  directions 
for  the  preservation  of  fruit-trees  during  sieges,  are  all  unac- 
countable anachronisms,  if  either  enacted  or  published  after  the 
time  of  Solomon. 

(c)  This  code,  however,  furnishes  evidence  that  it  was  enacted 
before  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy.  In  it  the  idea  of  a 
king  as  commander  of  the  army  is  utterly  excluded.  The  priest 
is  to  address  the  soldiers  on  the  eve  of  battle.  The  officers  are 
to  proclaim  liberty  to  certain  classes  to  withdraw  from  the  army. 
Then  leaders  in  battle  are  to  be  appointed.  There  is  no  chance 
here  for  the  exercise  of  kingly  power  in  the  army.  But  the 
Hebrew  idea  of  a  king  was  that  of  a  man  to  lead  the  army  and 
fight  the  battles  of  Israel.  Clearly  this  code  was  out  of  place 
after  the  appointment  of  Saul  as  king. 

(3)  The  command  to  destroy  the  Amalekites  would  have 
been  absurdly  out  of  place  after  the  time  of  David.  ^ 

(«)  This  is  declared  to  be  one  of  Moses*  commands  to  Israel 
shortly  before  his  death. 

{b)  The  Israelites  were  to  execute  this  command  after  their 
settlement  in  Canaan,  which  is  thus  represented  as  not  yet 
accomplished. 

(^)  This  command  was  partially  executed  by  Samuel  and 
Saul, 3  and  more  fully  by  David.* 

(fl?)  In  commissioning  Saul  to  exterminate  the  Amalekites, 
Samuel  evidently  referred  to  what  is  recorded  in  this  passage.^ 

(4)  The  laws  in  regard  to  magistrates  and  the  trial  of  cases 
plainly  point  to  the  times  before  the  monarchy.  These  laws  pro- 
vide for  government  and  trials  by  priests,  elders,  and  judges. 
Kingly  power  is  excluded  by  them.  Thus  provision  is  made  for 
carrying  cases  by  appeal  from  the  court  of  the  elders  in  the  gate 
to  the  court  in  the  place  which  God  should  choose  —  "unto  the 

1  Deut.  20 :  16, 17.  «  Deut.  25 :  17-19.  ^  j.  gam.  15 : 1-33. 

*  I.  Sam.  30  j  11-20.  ^  1.  Sam.  15 :  2,  3. 


THE  LEGISI.ATION  1 89 

priests  the  Levites,  and  unto  the  judge  that  shall  be  in  those 
days,  and  enquire ;  and  they  shall  show  thee  the  sentence  of 
judgment."^  It  is  indeed  true,  as  adverted  to  above,  that  the 
possibility  or  probability  of  the  appointment  of  a  king,  at  the 
demand  of  the  people,  is  mentioned ;  but  it  is  mentioned  only  as 
2i  future  contingency.  The  laws  provide  for  a  commonwealth, 
are  adapted  to  it,  and  are  so  framed  that  a  king  and  kingly  power 
could  come  in  only  as  intruders.  This  is  true  of  all  the  laws 
contained  in  the  Pentateuch.  Not  one  of  them  recognizes  the 
monarchy  as  having  been  established,  or  gives  the  remotest 
hint  of  its  existence,  except  as  future. 

( 5 )  This  consideration  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the 
books  which  contain  these  laws,  and  the  whole  history  in  which 
they  are  imbedded,  observe  the  same  absolute  silence  in  regard 
to  the  monarchy,  and  in  regard  to  the  whole  history  of  the  nation 
after  the  time  of  Moses.  There  is  not  a  word  in  all  these  laws 
and  in  all  these  law  books  that  betrays  knowledge  of  any  event 
after  his  death  and  burial.  We  reserve  this  point  for  further 
treatment  in  the  next  chapter. 

1  Deut.  17  5 1-13. 


CHAPTER  X 

ARGUMENT  FROM  SILENCE 

Thb  aiial5rtics  claim  that  Judges,  Samuel,  the  Psalms,  Prov- 
erbs, and  other  succeeding  books  are  silent  in  regard  to  the 
Pentateuch,  and  they  argue  that  therefore  these  books  came  into 
existence  before  the  Pentateuch.  We  will  endeavor  to  show 
farther  on  that  the  historical,  poetic,  and  prophetic  books  are  not 
silent  in  regard  to  the  Pentateuch,  but  do  recognize  its  existence 
in  various  ways.  The  argument  from  silence  may,  however, 
be  employed  more  effectively  on  the  other  side.  The  Pentateuch 
does  not  mention,  quote,  or  allude  to,  nor  in  any  way  indicate, 
suggest,  or  recognize  any  other  book  of  the  Bible.  The  Penta- 
teuch, therefore,  must  have  preceded  all  the  other  books  of  the 
Bible.  It  is  silent  in  regard  to  Hosea,  Jeremiah,  and  Isaiah,  and 
it  must,  therefore,  have  been  written  before  their  time.  It 
makes  no  allusion  to  any  of  the  Psalms,  and,  therefore,  it  pre- 
ceded even  the  Davidic  Psalms.  Neither  does  the  Pentateuch  in 
any  way  allude  to  or  recognize  the  books  of  Samuel,  Judges,  or 
Joshua.  It  is,  therefore,  of  earlier  date  than  any  of  these  books. 
This  reasoning  would  be  entirely  conclusive,  provided  silence  of 
one  book  concerning  another  were  proof  of  prior  existence, 
which  it  is  not ;  for  many  an  author  has  no  occasion  to  mention 
contemporary  or  preceding  authors. 

But  if  the  Pentateuchal  books  were  produced  in  the  exilic  age 
or  post-exilic  age,  their  silence  in  regard  to  many  preceding  per- 
sons and  events  is  unaccountable.  These  books  are  absolutely 
silent  in  regard  to  the  whole  Jewish  history  from  the  exile  back 
to  the  death  and  burial  of  Moses.  In  all  these  five  books  there 
is  not  a  word  about  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy,  the 
division  of  the  nation  into  two  kingdoms,  the  destruction  of 
the  ten  tribes,  the  exile,  or  any  other  event  in  that  long  period 
of  more  than  nine  hundred  years;  not  one  word  about  Saul, 
David,  Solomon,  or  any  other  king;  not  one  word  about 
Samuel,  Elijah,  Isaiah,  or  any  other  prophet ;  not  one  word 
even  about  the  temple,  with  its  beauty  and  its  priestly  service. 

190 


ARGUMENT  FROM  SILENCE  I9I 

Silence  in  regard  to  all  these  persons  and  all  these  events  so 
dear  to  the  pride  and  patriotism  and  piety  of  the  Jewish  heart ! 
It  is  questionable  whether  such  a  silence  was  psychologically- 
possible  on  the  part  of  Jewish  authors  living  at  or  after  the 
time  of  the  exile.  It  is  certain  that  this  silence  is  very  improb- 
able and  altogether  unaccountable. 

This  silence  becomes  still  more  enigmatical  and  improbable 
when  viewed  in  connection  with  the  hypotheses  of  the  analysts 
concerning  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuchal  books.  They  suppose 
that  Deuteronomy  was  written  near  the  close  of  the  monarchy, 
in  the  time  of  Manasseh,  probably  about  650  B.C.  They  sup- 
pose, further,  that  the  other  four  books  were  written,  or  in  some 
way  gotten  up,  during  the  exile  in  Babylonia.  And  still  further, 
they  suppose  that  in  these  Pentateuchal  books  are  embraced  the 
writings,  or  extracts  from  the  writings,  of  an  unknown  author, 
E,  who  lived  800  B.C.,  and  of  another  unknown  author,  J,  who 
lived  900  B.C.  They  suppose,  too,  that  a  host  of  writers,  com- 
pilers, redactors,  and  interpolators,  living  in  exilic  times,  worked 
on  the  Pentateuch.  Yet,  according  to  these  hypotheses,  not  one 
of  these  many  authors,  compilers,  redactors,  and  interpolators 
made  any  allusion  to  his  own  times  or  country,  or  in  any  way 
indicated  when  or  where  he  lived,  or,  indeed,  whether  he  lived 
at  all,  or  in  any  way  betrayed  his  knowledge  of  any  event  in 
Jewish  history  after  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan  to  conquer 
Canaan  ;  or,  if  the  Pentateuch  did  originally  contain  any  such 
allusions  or  suggestions,  they  were  all  carefully  weeded  out  by 
designing  redactors.  The  intention  of  this  silence  must  have 
been  to  deceive,  and,  according  to  the  views  of  the  analytics,  the 
effort  to  deceive  has  been  wonderfully  successful,  leading  astray 
the  very  elect,  even  the  disciples  of  Christ,  and  Christ  himself, 
the  great  Teacher.  What  extraordinary  men  those  Pentateuchal 
authors  must  have  been !  How  careful,  cautious,  and  self- 
restrained  they  were,  not  saying  a  word  to  betray  their  knowl- 
edge of  their  times  and  places,  avoiding  all  allusion  to  the 
history  of  the  preceding  nine  hundred  years,  and  projecting 
themselves,  with  complete  and  self-consistent  abandon,  back 
into  the  ideas,  laws,  and  affairs  of  the  Mosaic  age !  Wonderful 
men  they  must  have  been  ! 

Yet  the  analysts  go  right  on  emplojnng  arguvientum  e  silentio 
against  the  traditional  belief,  apparently  unaware  that  this 
argument  cuts  both  ways,  and  that  it  cuts  with  even  a  keener 


192  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP   OP   THE    PENTATEUCH 

edge  against  the  analytic  theories.  Their  argument  is,  that  the 
Psalms  and  prophecies  are  silent  in  regard  to  the  Pentateuch, 
and  therefore  came  into  existence  before  it.  We  say  that  the 
Pentateuch  is  silent  in  regard  to  the  Psalms  and  prophecies,  and 
therefore  came  into  existence  before  them. 


CHAPTER  XI 

EGYPTIAN  WORDS  AND  NAMES 

The  author's  ignorance  of  the  Egyptian  language  and  hiero- 
glyphics disqualifies  him  for  a  proper  handling  of  this  subject. 
All  that  shall  be  attempted  is  the  statement  of  a  few  facts. 

1.  The  name  Pharaoh  is  the  Hebrew  title  of  the  Egyptian 
king.  It  is  Hebrew  in  this  sense,  that  it  is  employed  by  the 
Hebrew  writers  and  by  them  alone.  It  occurs  first  in  the  history 
of  Abraham.  But  Pharaoh  is  an  Egyptian  word  {Perao),  and 
means  the  great  house,  or  palace.  The  Sublime  Porte  of  the 
Turks  is  an  analogous  phrase. 

2.  The  word  abrech  (translated  "bow  the  knee''^)  is  declared 
to  be  of  Semitic  origin,  but  is  retained  in  the  hieroglyphic 
dictionary.  2 

3.  Zaphnath-paaneah,^  the  title  given  to  Joseph,  -OM^^xiS  gover- 
nor of  the  place  of  life;  i.  e.,  of  the  capital  of  the  country. 

4.  Asenath,  the  name  of  Joseph's  wife,  is  declared  to  be  pure 
Egyptian,  and  to  be  but  seldom  met  with,  except  in  the  Old  and 
Middle  Empire. 

5.  Poti-pherah,  the  name  of  Joseph's  father-in-law,  means 
gift  of  the  sun. 

6.  Ahu,  translated  "meadow"  in  Genesis  41 :  2,  is  an  Egyp- 
tian word,  which  means  marsh-grass  or  sedge.  It  is  translated 
"reed-grass"  in  the  Revised  Version. 

7.  The  name  Moses  appears  to  be  of  Egyptian  origin.  It 
appears  in  Rameses,  Amosis,  and  other  names.  It  contains  the 
Egyptian  word  for  so7i  —  mes  or  viestc,  Pharaoh's  daughter  called 
the  child  found  in  the  ark  of  bulrushes  "Moses,"  claiming  him 
as  her  son,  because  she  had  drawn  him  from  the  water  and  thzis 
given  him  birth. 

8.  Rameses  or  Ramesu  means  the  son  of  the  sun.* 

This  list  is  sufficient  to  remind  the  reader  that  Genesis  and 

>  Gen.  41 :  43.  2  Brugsch-Bey,  Ugypt  Under  the  Pharaohs,  p.  122. 

3  Gen.  41 :  45. 

*  These  facts  are  taken  from  Brugsch-Bey,  Kenrick,  Sayce,  and  Naville. 
13  193 


194  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PEJNTATEUCH 

Exodus  contain  Egyptian  words  and  names.  Their  use  sug- 
gests the  residence  of  the  author  in  Egypt,  just  as  the  Aramaic 
words  in  the  books  of  Daniel  and  Ezra  suggest  the  residence  of 
their  authors  in  Babylonia.  As  the  Aramaic  words  in  these 
books  point  to  the  time  of  the  exile,  so  the  Egyptian  words  in 
the  Pentateuch  point  to  the  time  of  the  exodus.  The  occurrence 
of  such  words  in  Genesis  and  Exodus  is  accounted  for  only  in 
this  way. 


PART  IV 
EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE 


PART  IV 
EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE 

CHAPTER  1 

THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA 

In  regard  to  the  Book  of  Joshua,  its  date,  and  its  relations  to 
the  other  books  of  the  so-called  Hexateuch,  our  critics  are  all  at 
sea.  Reuss  at  one  time  declares  that  it  is  uncertain  whether 
priority  should  be  assigned  to  Deuteronomy  or  to  Joshua.  At 
another,  he  affirms  * '  the  necessity  of  concluding  that  the  Book 
of  Joshua,  in  its  actual  form,  is  posterior  to  the  Deuteronomic 
code,  but  contemporary  with,  or  rather  an  integral  part  of,  the 
Deuteronomic  book.^  Graf  makes  the  following  statement: 
•'Reuss  hat  darauf  aufmerksam  gemacht,  dass  die  Beziehung  des 
B.  Josua  auf  den  Pentateuch  in  gesetzlicher  Riicksicht  sowohl 
als  in  historischer  sich  auf  das  Deuteronomium  und  den  letzen 
Theil  des  B.  Numeri  beschrankt,  ein  neuer  Beweis,  wenn  es  dessen 
noch  bediirfte,  dass  die  Theile  des  jetzigen  Pentateuchs,  die  sich 
uns  als  nachexilische  erwiesen  haben,  bei  der  Abfassung  des  B. 
Josua  noch  nicht  vorhanden  waren"  ^  (** Reuss  has  called  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  connection  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  with 
the  Pentateuch,  in  a  legal  as  well  as  historical  view,  is  limited  to 
Deuteronomy  and  the  last  part  of  the  Book  of  Numbers — a  new 
proof,  if  any  were  needed,  that  the  parts  of  the  present  Penta- 
teuch which  exhibit  themselves  to  us  as  post-exilic  were  not  on 
hand  at  the  composition  of  the  Book  of  Joshua"  ).  Kuenen  is 
quite  sure  that  there  is  in  Joshua  a  Deuteronomic  recasting  of 
an  older  story,  either  by  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  or  by  some 
of  its  redactors,  but  in  regard  to  the  date  of  the  book  he  has 
little  to  say.  ^  Wellhausen  pronounces  it  to  be  historically  untrue, 
and  thus  imperiously  waves  aside  whatever  in  it  comes  in  con- 

>  L'Hisioire  Sainte,  Vol.  1.,  p.  216. 

2  GeschicMlichen  Biicher  des  Alten  Testaments,  p.  95.       ^  Hexateuch,  pp.  130, 131. 

197 


198  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

flict  with  his  views.  ^  This  treatment  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  by 
the  critics,  and  their  conflicting  views  concerning  it,  are  in  con- 
sequence of  two  facts,  one  of  which  is  that  the  Book  of  Joshua 
presupposes  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  other  is  that 
it  was  written  near  the  time  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan.  It  is 
these  two  facts,  we  think,  that  produce  the  paralysis  of  the 
critics  referred  to  above. 
Let  us  first  attend  to  the  date  of  the  book. 

1.  Our  first  proposition  is,  that  it  was  written  before  the 
exile.  The  proof  is  as  follows :  At  the  time  Joshua  was  writ- 
ten, the  city  of  Ai  was  lying  in  ruins,  and  a  place  uninhabited. 
This  is  expressly  stated.  "And  Joshua  burnt  Ai,  and  made  it  an 
heap  forever,  even  a  desolation  unto  this  day."^  But  Ai  was 
rebuilt  and  inhabited  before  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  It 
is  mentioned  once  in  Ezra  ^  and  twice  in  Nehemiah*  as  having 
been  inhabited  before  the  exile.  Since  the  author  of  Joshua 
describes  Ai  as  still  lying  in  ruins  in  his  day,  it  is  evident  that 
he  lived  and  wrote  before  the  exile. 

2.  By  parity  of  reasoning  it  is  shown  that  he  lived  and  wrote 
before  the  time  of  Isaiah ;  for  Ai  is  spoken  of  by  this  prophet  as 
an  inhabited  city.  "  He  is  come  to  Aiath.'*^  It  is  generally  ad- 
mitted that  this  is  another  name  for  Ai.  Even  Professor  Cheyne 
unhesitatingly  accepts  this  opinion.  ^  Hence  Joshua  was  written 
before  the  time  of  Isaiah. 

3.  It  is  further  in  evidence  that  Joshua  was  written  before  the 
time  of  Solomon,  for  the  author  expressly  states  that  in  his 
time,  at  the  very  time  he  wrote,  the  Canaanites  were  dwelling  in 
Gezer  among  the  Ephraimites.  "And  they  drave  not  out  the 
Canaanites  that  dwelt  in  Gezer ;  but  the  Canaanites  dwell  among 
the  Ephraimites  unto  this  day,  and  serve  under  tribute. ' '  ^  But 
it  is  further  in  evidence  that  the  Canaanites  ceased  to  inhabit 
Gezer  in  the  time  of  Solomon.  This  is  stated  in  the  Book  of 
Kings,  as  follows:  "For  Pharaoh  king  of  Egypt  had  gone  up 
and  taken  Gezer,  and  burnt  it  with  fire,  and  slain  the  Canaanites 
that  dwelt  in  the  city,  and  given  it  for  a  present  unto  his  daugh- 
ter, Solomon's  wife.  And  Solomon  built  Gezer,  and  Beth-horon 
the  nether.  "8  It  is  clear  that  Joshua  was  written  before  the 
destruction  of  Gezer  and  its  inhabitants  by  the  king  of  Egypt. 

Up  to  this  point  our  critics  make  but  little  resistance.     But  to 

1  Israel,  p.  442.  a  Josh.  8 :  28.  a  Ezra  2  :  28.  *  Neh.  7  :  32 ;  11 :  31. 

.6  Isa.  10 :  28.    «  Cheyne  on  Isaiah,  p.  74.      '  Josh.  16 :  10.      » I.  Kings  9  :  16, 17. 


THE   BOOK   OF  JOSHUA  I99 

admit  that  Joshua  was  written  before  the  time  of  Solomon  would 
endanger  their  theories,  and  here  they  begin  to  contend. 
Kuenen  admits  that  if  the  passage  in  I.  Kings  9 :  16  is  taken 
literally  "we  should  have  to  place  Joshua  16:  10  before  Sol- 
omon," 1  but  he  endeavors  to  get  out  of  the  difficulty  by  the 
supposition  that  Gezer  did  "not  become  tributary  to  the  Israel- 
ites until  after  its  conquest  by  Solomon's  father-in-law. "^  But, 
in  the  first  place,  this  is  merely  a  supposition,  made  without 
evidence,  to  avoid  an  undesirable  conclusion.  Second,  though 
Kuenen  affirms  this  supposition  to  be  probable,  we  think  it  very 
improbable  that  Solomon  would  compel  a  city  which  he  himself 
had  built  "to  serve  under  tribute."  Third,  the  supposition, 
even  if  admitted,  would  not  meet  the  case.  For  the  declaration 
is,  that  the  Canaanites,  at  the  time  the  author  of  Joshua  was 
w^riting,  were  living  with  the  Ephraimites  and  serving  under 
tribute.  But  the  declaration  in  Kings  is,  that  in  the  time  of 
Solomon  Pharaoh  burned  the  city  and  slew  the  Canaanites.  They 
certainly  did  not  pay  tribute,  nor  even  live  in  Gezer,  after  Pharaoh 
had  killed  them.  The  two  facts  then  remain  :  the  Canaanites 
were  living  in  Gezer  in  the  time  of  the  author  of  Joshua,  but 
they  ceased  to  live  there  during  the  early  part  of  Solomon's 
reign.  Hence  the  author  of  Joshua  lived  and  wrote  before  the 
time  of  Solomon. 

4.  Joshua  was  written  before  the  time  of  King  David,  for  at 
the  time  it  was  written  the  Jebusites  held  and  inhabited  Jeru- 
salem;  but  in  David's  time  they  were  conquered.  "As  for  the 
Jebusites,  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  children  of  Judah 
could  not  drive  them  out :  but  the  Jebusites  dwell  with  the  chil- 
dren of  Judah  at  Jerusalem  unto  this  day." 2  Their  subjugation 
by  David  is  related  both  in  Samuel  ^  and  in  Chronicles.^  The 
plain  and  legitimate  conclusion  is,  that  the  above  declaration  was 
made  by  the  author  of  Joshua  before  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem, 
which  took  place  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  reign  of  David. 

Kuenen's  way  of  meeting  this  argument  is  as  follows:  He 
affirms  that  this  passage  in  Joshua  points  to  the  time  after  David, 
"  for  till  then  Jerusalem  was  still  completely  in  the  power  of  the 
Jebusites,  but  after  its  capture  by  David  they  remained  there 
side  by  side  with  the  Israelites."^  Reuss  favors  this  inter- 
pretation by  his  rendering  of  the  passage,  as  follows:     "The 

»  Hexateueh,  p.  36.  «  Josh.  15  :  63.  ^  jj,  gam.  5  :  6-9. 

*I.  Chr.  11 :  4-8.  «  Hexateueh,  p.  3G. 


200  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OP   THE    PENTATEUCH 

Jebusites  have  inhabited  Jerusalem  conjointly  with  those  of 
Judah  until  this  day."^  To  all  this  it  may  be  replied,  (i)  that 
if  the  Jebusites  dwelt  in  Jerusalem  and  the  Israelites  in  the  sur- 
rounding country  and  towns,  the  conditions  of  the  declaration 
would  be  fulfilled,  so  far  as  the  dwelling  together  of  the  two 
races  is  concerned.  (2)  The  passage  in  question  refers  to  a 
time  when  the  Israelites  ^^ could  not  drive  the  Jebusites  out  of 
Jerusalem."  If  the  Israelites  did  not  expel  the  Jebusites  in 
David's  time,  it  was  not  for  the  want  of  power.  The  passage, 
then,  refers  to  a  state  of  things  before  David's  time.  For  he 
conquered  and  captured  Jerusalem.  2 

5.  There  are  several  passages  in  Joshua  which  point  to  a 
time  not  long  after  the  conquest.  The  writer  states  that  Joshua 
placed  in  Jordan  twelve  stones  as  a  memorial  of  the  miraculous 
crossing  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  he  adds  that  at  the  time 
he  was  writing  these  stones  were  still  remaining  in  the  midst  of 
Jordan,  where  Joshua  had  placed  them:  "And  they  are  there 
unto  this  day."  »  But  it  is  not  probable  that  these  stones  would 
remain  in  the  Jordan  a  very  long  time.  Freshets  would  wash 
them  away.  The  rushing  waters  of  the  rapid  river  would  wear 
them  away,  in  accordance  with  the  old  adage  that  the  constant 
drop  will  wear  the  stone.  About  four  hundred  years  intervened 
between  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan  and  the  reign  of  King  David. 
It  is  preposterous  to  suppose  that  those  memorial  stones  remained 
in  the  swift  current  of  the  Jordan  during  one-half  of  that  time, 
or  even  one-fourth.  But  the  author  of  Joshua  says,  "They  are 
there  unto  this  day."  If  they  remained  there  only  fifty  years, 
the  Book  of  Joshua  was  written  within  fifty  years  after  the  cross- 
ing of  the  Jordan.  If  they  remained  only  twenty-five  years,  the 
book  must  have  been  written  within  that  period  after  the  crossing. 

There  are  other  and  similar  indications  of  time.  The  writer 
says  that  the  pile  of  stones  placed  over  the  dead  body  of  Achan  was 
still  to  be  seen  in  his  day  :  "And  they  raised  over  him  a  great 
heap  of  stones  unto  this  day."*  How  long  would  that  pile  of 
stones  probably  remain  ?  Would  it  be  likely  to  remain  five  hun- 
dred, four  hundred,  or  three  hundred  years  ?  Would  it  be  likely 
to  remain  a  century  even,  exposed  to  frost,  and  flood,  and  fire, 
and  earthquake,  and  whirlwind,  and  the  doings  of  men  and  beasts  ? 

Again,  the  writer  employs  the  formula  "unto  this  day"  in 

»  L'HisMre  Sainte,  Vol.  II.,  p.  398.  « II.  Sam.  5:6-9;  I.  Chr.  11 :  4-8. 

3  Josh.  4:9.  4  Josh.  7:26. 


the:  book  OI?  JOSHUA  20I 

regard  to  the  stones  which  were  placed  in  the  mouth  of  the  cave 
of  Makkedah,  in  which  the  five  kings  were  buried.  It  is  not 
probable  that  these  stones  would  remain  five  hundred  years,  or 
even  a  century.  Curiosity,  if  nothing  else,  would  induce  some 
one  to  remove  the  stones  and  enter  the  cave. 

Once  more,  the  declaration  concerning  the  Gibeonites  points 
to  a  time  before  Samuel  and  Saul:  "And  Joshua  made  them 
that  day  hewers  of  w^ood  and  drawers  of  water  for  the  congrega- 
tion, and  for  the  altar  of  the  Lord,  even  unto  this  day,  in  the 
place  which  he  should  choose."  ^  There  are  two  notes  of  time 
in  this  declaration  :  (i)  The  words  "should  choose,"  being  the 
words  of  the  historian,  not  of  Joshua,  indicate  that  at  the  time 
of  writing  the  choice  of  a  place  for  the  altar  and  worship  of  God 
had  not  yet  been  made.  The  time,  therefore,  was  at  least  before 
the  building  of  the  temple.  (2)  The  other  indication  of  time  is 
by  the  phrase  * '  unto  this  day. '  *  Evidently  the  author  means  that 
in  his  day  the  Gibeonites  were  in  the  condition  in  w^hich  they 
were  placed  by  Joshua.  But  they  were  not  in  this  condition  in 
the  time  of  Saul,  David,  or  Solomon,  or  in  succeeding  times. 
The  Nethinim  were  not  mere  wood-cutters  and  water-drawers. 
Clearly,  then,  the  writer  of  Joshua  9:  27  lived  at  least  before  the 
time  of  Samuel. 

Kuenen  makes  two  remarks  about  this  passage.  One  is  that 
Saul  did  not  kill  all  the  Gibeonites,^  which  is  true.  The  other 
remark  is,  that  in  this  verse  we  have  a  double  representation  put 
together  in  defiance  of  consistency  and  grammar.  This  is  not 
criticism,  but  mere  skeptical  dogmatism. 

6.  The  date  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  is  fixed  by  the  declaration 
made  concerning  Rahab  :  "And  Joshua  saved  Rahab  the  harlot 
alive,  and  her  father's  household,  and  all  that  she  had  ;  and  she 
dwelleth  in  Israel  even  unto  this  day ;  because  she  hid  the  mes- 
sengers which  Joshua  sent  to  spy  out  Jericho."  ^  The  obvious 
meaning  of  this  passage  is  that  Rahab  was  still  living  at  the  time 
it  was  written.  And  this  clearly  proves  that  this  passage,  and 
presumptively  the  whole  Book  of  Joshua,  were  written  not  later 
than  the  generation  immediately  succeeding  Joshua  and  the 
conquest. 

The  critics,  of  course,  make  an  effort  to  set  aside  this  testimony 
so  damaging  to  their  theories.  Kuenen  asserts,  and  in  this  case 
does  nothing  more  than   assert,  that  Joshua  6:  25  "does  not 

»  Josh.  9 :  27.  8  Hezateuch,  p.  36.  ^  Josh .  6 :  25. 


202  MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

refer  to  Rahab,  but  to  her  descendants."  ^  We  ask  the  reader's 
attention  to  the  absurdity  of  this  construction.  It  makes  the 
name  of  Rahab  change  from  a  personal  to  a  figurative  meaning, 
and  back  again  from  a  figurative  to  a  personal  meaning  in  one 
short  verse.  "And  Joshua  saved  Rahab  the  harlot  alive  and  her 
father's  household  and  all  that  she  had;  and  she  dwelleth  in 
Israel  even  unto  this  day,  because  she  hid  the  messengers,  which 
Joshua  sent  to  spy  out  Jericho. ' '  To  say  that  the  pronoun  *  *  she ' ' 
in  the  middle  clause  does  not  mean  Rahab,  though  it  does  so  mean 
immediately  before  and  after,  is  an  illustration  of  the  shifts  to 
which  some  critics  will  resort  in  order  to  refute  an  unanswerable 
argument.  Reuss  also  tries  his  hand  on  the  passage,  and  his 
effort  is  to  get  rid  of  the  reference  to  present  time.  Avoiding 
the  present  tense  of  the  English  version  and  the  present-perfect 
of  the  French,  he  translates  as  follows :  "  Josue  la  laissa  vivre,  et 
elle  demeura  parmi  les  Israelites  jusqu'a  ce  jour"  ^  (**  Joshua 
saved  her  life,  and  she  lived  among  the  Israelites  until  this 
day  "  ) .  But,  after  all,  the  words  *  *  until  this  day ' '  signify  present 
time,  and  even  if  in  Reuss' s  translation  the  death  of  Rahab  is 
implied,  it  is  further  implied  that  she  had  lived  on  up  to  the  time 
in  which  the  author  lived  and  wrote,  and  that  she  had  died  only 
a  short  time  previous.  The  critic  seems  to  have  been  aware  of 
this,  and  in  a  marginal  note  says,  "S'il  est  dit  que  Rahab 
demeure  encore  in  Israel,  il  s'agit  naturellement  de  ses  descend- 
ants" 2  C'lf  it  is  said  that  Rahab  lives  still  in  Israel,  it  naturally 
applies  to  her  descendants").  This  is  as  much  as  to  say  that 
"Rahab"  does  not  naturally  mean  Rahab,  but  her  descendants. 
Evidently  the  critic  felt  the  necessity  of  holding  this  construc- 
tion, as  it  were,  in  reserve,  to  be  resorted  to  in  case  of  failure  of 
his  other  expedient.  But  Reuss  has  completely  spoiled  this 
construction  by  his  translation.  For  the  expression,  **She  lived 
until  this  day,"  implies  that  she  was  dead  at  the  time  of  writing. 
But  as  her  posterity  did  not  cease  to  exist,  this  clause  cannot 
apply  to  them,  and  must  refer  to  Rahab  personally. 

We  are  not  aware  that  Wellhausen  deals  specially  with  this 
passage.  He  recognized  the  necessity  of  getting  rid  entirely  of 
the  testimon3^  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  to  the  early  existence  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  hence  denies  its  historical  character.  This 
delivers  him  from  the  necessity  of  petty  shifts  and  unnatural 
constructions. 

1  Hexateuch,  p.  36.  ^  L'llistmre  Sainte,  Vol.  II.,  p.  373. 


THE   BOOK  OF  JOSHUA  203 

7.  Another  passage  bearing  on  the  question  in  hand  is  as 
follows:  "And  Israel  served  the  I^ord  all  the  days  of  Joshua, 
and  all  the  days  of  the  elders  that  overlived  Joshua. "  1  It  is  to 
be  observed  that  the  writer  in  this  declaration  does  not  go  be3'ond 
the  time  covered  by  the  life  of  Joshua  and  the  lives  of  his  con- 
temporaries that  survived  him,  and  that  he  is  entirely  silent  in 
regard  to  the  course  of  the  Israelites  after  that  time.  Why  this 
silence?  The  hypothesis  that  the  writer  was  one  of  those  con- 
temporaries that  outlived  Joshua,  and  wrote  in  the  age  immedi- 
ately succeeding,  accounts  for  this  silence.  Nothing  else  accounts 
for  it,  or  at  least  so  well.  There  is,  then,  a  strong  presumption  in 
favor  of  this  hj-pothesis.  This  presumption  is  strengthened  by 
what  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges  saj^s  concerning  the 
subsequent  course  of  the  Israelites.  He  first  repeats  the  decla- 
ration made  in  Joshua  that  "the  people  served  the  Lord  all 
the  days  of  Joshua,  and  all  the  days  of  the  elders  that  outlived 
Joshua,  who  had  seen  all  the  great  works  of  the  Lord  that  he 
did  for  Israel"  ;  then,  after  mentioning  the  death  of  Joshua,  he 
adds:  "And  also  all  that  generation  were  gathered  unto  their 
fathers.  And  there  nrose  another  generation  after  them,  which 
knew  not  the  Lord,  nor  j'et  the  works  which  he  had  done  for 
Israel.  And  the  children  of  Israel  did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the 
Lord,  and  served  Baalim."  ^  The  author  of  the  Book  of  Judges, 
living  after  Joshua  and  his  surviving  contemporaries,  is  a  com- 
petent witness  to  testify  as  to  what  took  place  in  the  succeeding 
generation  as  well  as  to  the  course  of  Israel  in  Joshua's  time. 
But,  to  use  the  phrase  of  the  critics,  the  author  of  Joshua 
"knows  nothing"  of  what  took  place  in  Israel  in  the  generation 
after  Moses  and  his  contemporaries.  There  is  a  marked  differ- 
ence between  the  two  writers  in  this  respect. 

8.  Finally,  the  author  of  Joshua  speaks  of  himself  as  taking 
part  in  the  conquest  of  Canaan.  In  speaking  of  the  crossing  of 
the  Jordan  by  the  Israelites,  under  the  command  of  Joshua,  to 
attack  Jericho,  he  employs  the  pronoun  we, —  "until  we  were 
passed  over."  ^  According  to  the  plain  meaning  of  these  words, 
the  writer  of  this  declaration  was  one  of  those  who  crossed  the 
Jordan  under  the  leadership  of  Joshua.  It  is  by  just  such  evi- 
dence that  it  is  proved  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  was  the  con- 
temporary and  companion  of  Paul.*  The  analytic  critics  do  not 
agree  as  to  the  mode  of  getting  rid  of  the  testimony  of  this 

>  Josh.  24  :  31.  '  Judg.  2 :  7-lL  ^  Josh.  5:1.  *  Acts  16 :  10. 


204  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

passage.  Kuenen  claims  that  the  text  is  erroneous,  and  that  the 
true  reading  gives  us  "they"  instead  of  "we."  He  thinks  he 
knows  how  the  error  originated,  namely,  by  the  eye  of  the  tran- 
scriber resting  on  the  twenty-third  verse  of  the  preceding 
chapter  and  by  his  copying  therefrom  the  word  "  we."  ^  This  is 
mere  assertion  based  on  conjecture.  There  is,  however,  a  various 
reading  which  gives  the  pronoun  in  the  third  person.  The 
Revised  Version  places  this  reading  in  the  margin.  The  accepted 
reading  is,  however,  sustained  by  the  manuscripts,  and  is  prob- 
ably correct.  The  argument  is  therefore  entitled  to  consideration. 
De  Wette,  without  questioning  the  correctness  of  the  reading, 
maintains  that  the  writer,  though  living  long  afterward,  identi- 
fied himself  in  thought  with  the  Israelites  as  they  crossed  the 
Jordan,  and  therefore  said  "we."  He  refers  to  Psalm  66:6, 
which  is  not  a  parallel  case.  Our  passage  in  Joshua  is  a 
historical  statement  and  is  to  be  understood  in  a  literal  way. 
Reuss's  way  of  getting  rid  of  the  pronoun  in  the  first  person 
is  certainly  the  most  convenient,  if  not  the  most  successful.  He 
omits  it  from  his  translation  and  says  nothing  about  it.  He  is 
by  no  means  singular  in  this,  but  such  a  procedure  was  not  to  be 
expected  in  a  famous  critical  work  gotten  up  to  overthrow 
traditional  beliefs. 

Such  are  the  evidences  of  the  early  date  of  the  Book  of  Joshua. 
To  plead  that  these  marks  of  antiquity  are  the  work  of  revisers 
is  of  no  avail  unless  that  plea  is  accompanied  wath  the  proved 
charge  of  dishonesty.  For  the  book  revised  must  precede  the 
revision,  and  the  original  writer  be  more  ancient  than  the 
reviser.  The  hypothesis,  then,  of  revision  only  makes  matters 
worse  for  the  analysts,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  revisers 
inserted  marks  of  antiquity  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving.  Our 
critics,  however,  are  not  very  forward  to  make,  at  least  in  a 
direct  way,  the  charge  of  fraud  against  the  biblical  writers. 
Kuenen  does  indeed  indulge  pretty  freely  in  charges  of  this 
kind,  in  his  work  entitled,  "The  Bible  for  lycarners,"  but  when 
he  assumes  to  write  with  the  dignity  of  a  critic  he  suppresses 
pretty  thoroughly  out-givings  of  that  sort,  being  led,  perhaps, 
by  a  sense  of  decency. 

Now  the  antiquity  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  demonstrates  the  mis- 
takes of  our  critics.  The  existence  of  this  book  soon  after  the 
death  of  Moses  plays  havoc  with  their  hypotheses  and  arguments. 

^  Hexateuch,  p.  36. 


THE  BOOK  OP  JOSHUA  205 

I.  The  Book  of  Joshua  presupposes  the  Mosaic  laws.  It 
makes  express  mention  of  them.  "Only  be  thou  strong  and 
very  courageous,  that  thou  may  est  observe  to  do  according  to  all 
the  law  which  Moses  my  servant  commanded  thee."  ^  "This 
book  of  the  law  shall  not  depart  out  of  thy  mouth  ;  but  thou 
shalt  meditate  therein  day  and  night,  that  thou  mayest  observe 
to  do  according  to  all  that  is  written  therein."  ^  "As  Moses 
the  servant  of  the  Lord  commanded  the  children  of  Israel,  as  it 
is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  an  altar  of  whole 
stones,  over  which  no  man  hath  lift  up  any  iron."  ^  "There 
was  not  a  word  of  all  that  Moses  commanded,  which  Joshua 
read  not  before  all  the  congregation  of  Israel,  with  the  women, 
and  the  little  ones,  and  the  strangers  that  were  conversant  among 
them."  ^  "Be  ye  therefore  very  courageous  to  keep  and  to  do 
all  that  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  that  ye  turn 
not  aside  therefrom  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left."  ^ 

These  and  other  passages  set  forth  the  following  facts :  ( i ) 
that  in  the  time  of  Joshua  the  Israelites  had  a  body  of  laws  for 
their  guidance  as  a  nation  and  as  individuals ;  ( 2 )  that  these 
laws  were  written  ;  (3)  that  Moses  was  their  recognized  author; 
(4)  that  they  were  recorded  in  a  book,  called  the  "book  of  the 
law '  *  and  the  ' '  book  of  the  law  of  Moses  "  ;  ( 5 )  that  the  law  and 
the  book  of  the  law  were  distinguished  from  one  another.  Joshua 
wrote  a  copj^  of  the  law  of  Moses  on  the  stones  of  the  altar,  in  the 
presence  of  the  Israelites  ;  but  he  read  to  the  people  all  the  words 
of  the  law,  according  to  all  that  was  written  in  the  book  of  the 
law.^ 

These  facts  are  an  additional  proof,  if  any  were  needed,  of  the 
utter  inadmissibility  of  the  hypothesis  of  the  analysts  that  the 
so-called  *  *  Mosaic  code ' '  originated  by  development  after  the  time 
of  Moses. 

2.  The  Book  of  Joshua  recognizes  the  existence  of  the  ark 
and  the  tabernacle.  The  ark  was  prominent  in  the  crossing  of 
the  Jordan  and  in  the  capture  of  Jericho.  The  first  mention 
of  it  indicates  its  prior  and  well-known  existence. '  This  is  true 
also  of  the  tabernacle.  The  first  mention  of  it  presupposes  its 
previous  institution  and  history :  ' '  And  the  whole  congregation 
of  the  children  of  Israel  assembled  together  at  Shiloh,  and  set 
up  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  there. ' '  ^    Aside  from  the 

» Josh.  1:7.  2  Josh.  1:8.  »  Josh.  8 :  31.  *  Josh.  8 :  35. 

»  Josh.  23 :  6.  «  Josh.  8 :  32, 34.  »  Josh.  3 :  3.  ^  josh.  18 : 1. 


206  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

time  of  the  writing  of  the  Book  of  Joshua,  the  historical  state- 
ment just  quoted  must  be  pronounced  false  by  every  one  who 
follows  our  critics  in  holding  that  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  existed 
only  in  the  imagination  and  fictions  of  later  writers.  But  in 
view  of  the  antiquity  of  the  book,  he  who  agrees  with  these 
critics  in  this  matter  must  conclude  that  its  author  was  guilty 
of  known  and  willful  falsehood ;  for  a  writer  who  was  partly 
contemporary  with  Joshua  must  have  known  whether  any 
Mosaic  tabernacle  then  existed.  The  antiquity  of  this  book, 
then,  proves  the  existence  of  the  ark  and  the  tabernacle  in  the 
time  of  Joshua,  unless  we  assume  that  the  writer  of  Joshua 
affirmed  what  he  knew  to  be  false.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
existence  of  the  tabernacle  and  the  ark  presupposes  a  lycvitical 
code  and  service,  in  opposition  to  the  evolutionary  h3^pothesis  of 
the  analysts. 

3.  Accordingly,  in  this  book  Levitical  ideas  and  customs  are 
set  forth  very  prominently.  We  have  an  example  of  this  in  the 
account  of  the  destruction  of  Jericho.  The  ark  borne  by  the 
priests,  preceded  by  seven  priests  bearing  seven  trumpets,  pro- 
ceeded around  the  beleaguered  city  once  a  day  for  six  days,  the 
seven  priests  blowing  their  seven  trumpets  ;  but  on  the  seventh 
day  they  thus  marched  around  the  walls  seven  times:  "And 
seven  priests  bearing  seven  trumpets  of  rams'  horns  before  the 
ark  of  the  Lord  went  on  continually,  and  blew  with  the  trumpets : 
and  the  armed  men  went  before  them ;  but  the  rearward  came 
after  the  ark  of  the  Lord,  the  priests  going  on,  and  blowing  with 
the  trumpets."  ^  Here  are  brought  to  view  the  Levitical  priests 
and  their  service.  To  use  Reuss's  expression,  we  have  here 
"  Leviticism  in  full  view."  ^  The  account,  merely  as  history,  is  a 
blow  to  the  hypothesis  of  the  origin  of  the  Levitical  code  by 
development,  and  greater  force  is  imparted  to  it  by  the  antiquity 
of  the  book, 

4.  The  Book  of  Joshua  reveals  the  fact  that  in  Joshua's  time 
it  was  recognized  as  an  existing  law  that  there  should  be  but 
one  central  place  of  worship.  When  the  two  and  a  half  tribes 
east  of  the  Jordan  erected  an  altar,  their  brethren  charged  them 
with  trespass  and  rebellion,  and  were  restrained  from  going  to 
war  only  by  the  assurance  that  the  new  altar  was  not  intended 
for  sacrifice  and  worship,  but  merely  as  a  memorial.  They  of 
the  east  side  said,  "God  forbid  that  we  should  rebel  against  the 

*Jo8h.  6:  13.  2 "En  pleiue  Leviticism." 


the:  book  of  JOSHUA  207 

lyord,  and  turn  this  day  from  following  the  I,ord,  to  build  an 
altar  for  burnt-offerings,  for  meat-offerings,  or  for  sacrifices, 
besides  the  altar  of  the  I^ord  our  God  that  is  before  his  taber- 
nacle." ^  Thus  both  the  parties  accepted  the  law  as  requiring 
the  centralization  of  worship,  and  recognized  the  offering  of 
sacrifices  elsewhere  than  at  the  altar  before  the  tabernacle  as 
disobedience  and  rebellion.  This  is  the  statement  of  the  author 
of  Joshua.  Who  has  a  right  to  contradict  this  statement  and 
pronounce  it  a  mistake  or  a  lie?  But,  in  addition  to  this,  the 
accuracy  and  truthfulness  of  the  account  are  guaranteed  by  the 
fact  that  it  was  written  in  the  time  of  Joshua. 

5-    The_jook  of  Jo.shna^  presupposes  the  books  of  the  Penta- 
teuch.     It    more    especially    presnppn<;p«?    r>f^iif^r^nnT^y^    ?\n±_ 
through  it  the^receding  books.     As  an  example,  let  us  take 
the  first  chapter  of  Joshua.     Almost  every  verse  contains  a 
quotation  from,  or  a  reference  to,  some  passage  found  in  the 
Pentateuch  ;  more  generally  in  the  last  book.     In  the  first  and 
second  verses  the  words,  "Now  after  the  death  of  Moses  the 
servant  of  the  I^ord,"  and  "Moses  my  servant  is  dead,"  clearly, 
point  to  Deuteronomy  34:5.     The  words,   "Joshua  the  son  of] 
Nun,  Moses'  minister,"  in  the  first  verse,  point  to  Exodus  24: 
13  ;  33'  II-     Verses  3,  4,  and  5  are  a  repetition  of  Deuteronomy 
II :  24,  25.    Verses  6  and  7  are  taken  from  Deuteronomy  31:6,  7. 
The  eighth  verse  refers  to  Deuteronomy  31 :  9,  26 ;   5 :  32,  S3- 
Verses  14  and  15  refer  to  Numbers  32  :  28-33. 

The  twenty-third  chapter  also  abounds  in  references  to  the 
preceding  books.  To  be  convinced  that  Joshua  makes  almost 
continual  reference  to  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch  the  reader 
needs  only  to  hunt  up  the  references  in  an  ordinary  polyglot 
Bible. 


'Josh.  22:  29. 


CHAPTER  II 

HISTORICAL  BOOKS  AFTER  JOSHUA 

1,  In  the  Book  of  Judges  the  Pentateuchal  laws  and  history- 
are  repeatedly  and  variously  recognized. 

God's  covenant  with  Israel,  the  prohibition  of  leagues  with 
the  nations  of  Canaan  ^  and  of  intermarriages  ^  with  them,  the 
separation  of  the  Levites  to  the  priestly  ofl&ce,^  the  law  of  the 
Nazarite,^  circumcision,^  a  central  place  of  worship,^  and  many 
other  laws  and  institutions  are  mentioned  just  as  they  are  set 
forth  in  Deuteronomy  and  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 

The  message  which  Jephthah  sent  to  the  king  of  the  Ammon- 
ites, and  much  else  that  is  contained  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of 
Judges,  have  all  the  marks  of  quotations  from  the  twentieth 
and  twenty-first  chapters  of  Numbers.  That  they  really  are 
such,  and  that  Jephthah  quoted  the  very  language  of  that  book, 
is  not  likely  to  be  denied  by  any,  except  by  those  who  have  an 
hypothesis  to  maintain. 

2.  The  books  of  Samuel,  in  like  manner,  presuppose  the 
Pentateuchal  laws  and  institutions. 

In  them  Shiloh  appears  as  the  one  place  of  central  worship. 
Here  were  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  the  ark  of  the 
covenant,  the  altar,  the  show-bread,  and  the  Levitical  priests, 
clothed  with  the  ephod.  To  Shiloh  the  Israelites  came  yearly 
to  eat  and  to  drink  before  the  Lord,  to  worship  and  to  offer  sacri- 
fices. There  were  various  services  and  sacrifices — the  yearly 
sacrifice  and  special  sacrifices,  burnt-offerings  and  whole  burnt- 
offerings,  peace-offerings,  trespass-offerings,  vows,  incense,  offer- 
ings of  meal  and  wine,  the  burning  of  the  fat  upon  the  altar,  and 
a  portion  for  the  priests.'  Besides  these  incidental  allusions, 
there  is  a  more  distinct  recognition  of  many  of  the  Mosaic  laws 
— the  divine  appointment  of  the  Levitical  priesthood ;  ^  the  fes- 
tival of  the  new  moon  ;  ^    ceremonial  cleanness  and  unclean- 

»Judg.2-2;Deut.7:2,3.  ^Judg.  3:6.  ^  Judg.  17 :  7-13 ;  Num.  3 :  5-10. 

*  Judg.  13 :  4, 5 ;  Num.  6 :  2-12.  ^  ju^g.  14 .  3.  e  Judg.  19  :  18. 

»I.  Sam.  1:3,  9,11,25;  2!  15.  « i.  gam.  2 :  27-29.  » I.  Sam.  20 :  5, 18. 

208 


HISTORICAIv  BOOKS  AFTER  JOSHUA  209 

ness  ;  ^  the  regulations  in  regard  to  the  slaughtering  of  animals 
for  food  and  the  prohibition  of  the  eating  of  blood  ;  ^  the  capital 
punishment  of  wizards  and  witches ;  ^  the  Lord's  purpose  and 
command  to  exterminate  the  Amalekites  ;  *  and  many  other  allu- 
sions to  laws,  institutions,  and  customs  which  are  known  to  us 
only  in  the  Pentateuchal  books. 

The  analytic  critics  endeavor  to  set  aside  the  testimony  of  the 
books  of  Samuel  to  the  early  existence  of  the  Mosaic  laws  and 
institutions  and  of  the  Pentateuch  by  their  convenient  hypoth- 
esis of  revisions  and  interpolations.  They  claim  that  some  of 
the  statements  are  Deuteronomic  insertions,  and  that  others  are 
even  of  post-exilic  origin.  Besides  this,  they  claim  that  these 
books  are  not  trustworthy,  anyhow.  Wellhausen  says  of  one 
portion,  *'Es  geniigt  den  Inhalt  dieser  Geschichte  zu  referiren, 
um  ihre  geistliche  Mache  und  ihre  innere  Unmoglichkeit  sofort 
zur  Empfindung  zu  bringen"^  (  "It  is  sufficient  to  refer  to  the 
contents  of  this  history  in  order  to  make  us  at  once  perceive  its 
ghostly  make-up  and  its  inherent  impossibility").  Again  he 
exclaims,  "An  der  ganzen  Erzahlung  kann  kein  wahres  Wort 
sein"  ®  ("In  the  whole  narrative  there  is  not  a  truthful  word"). 
Of  course,  there  are  many  of  the  analytic  school  who  would  not 
go  so  far  as  Wellhausen  in  denying  and  making  void  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  Less  logical,  as  well  as  less  daring,  than  he,  they  do 
not  so  fully  realize  what  must  be  done  in  order  to  defend  the 
analytic  hj^pothesis. 

3.     The  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles. 

These  books  unmistakably  refer  to  the  Mosaic  laws  and 
the  Pentateuch.  David  charged  Solomon,  saying,  "And  keep 
the  charge  of  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  his  ways,  to  keep  his 
statutes,  and  his  commandments,  and  his  judgments,  and  his  tes- 
timonies, as  it  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses. ' '  ^  Here  the  written 
laws,  statutes,  commandments,  and  judgments  are  mentioned. 
Again,  "And  it  came  to  pass,  as  soon  as  the  kingdom  was  con- 
firmed in  his  hand,  that  he  slew  his  servants  which  had  slain 
the  king  his  father.  But  the  children  of  the  murderers  he  slew 
not :  according  unto  that  which  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law 
of  Moses,  wherein  the  Lord  commanded,  saying.  The  fathers  shall 
not  be  put  to  death  for  the  children,  nor  the  children  be  put  to  death 

1 1.  Sara.  20  :  26  ;  21 :  4,  5.  21.  gam.  14 .  33.35  .  Lev.  20 :  27. 

3 1.  Sam.  28  :  10,  with  Ex.  22  :  18  ;  Lev.  20 :  2. 

*  I.  Sam.  15 :  1-3,  with  Ex.  17  :  16  ;  Deut.  25  :  19. 

=  Prolegomena,  p.  257.  « Idem,  p.  258.  ^  I.  Kings  2  :  3. 

14 


2IO  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF  THEJ    P^NTATEIUCH 

for  the  fathers  ;  but  every  man  shall  be  put  to  death  for  his  own 
sin."  ^  Here  we  have  a  quotation  from  "the  book  of  the  law  of 
Moses,"  as  contained  in  Deuteronomy . ^  There  are  various 
other  passages  in  which  the  book  and  the  law  of  Moses  are 
either  expressly  or  impliedly  mentioned.  ^  So  strong,  indeed,  is 
the  testimony  to  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  institutions  and 
books  in  the  time  of  the  kings  that  the  analysts  are  compelled 
to  apply  their  india-rubber  hypothesis  of  interpolations  by  later 
writers,  and  to  deny  the  historical  character  of  these  two 
books. 

That  the  books  of  Chronicles  refer  to  and  mention  the  book 
and  the  law  of  Moses,  goes  without  saying.  Thus  are  mentioned 
"the  statutes  and  judgments  which  the  I^ord  charged  Moses 
with  concerning  Israel.  "*  Of  King  Jehoshaphat  it  is  recorded 
that  "also  in  the  third  year  of  his  reign  he  sent  to  his  princes 
[five  are  named]  ...  to  teach  in  the  cities  of  Judah.  And  with 
them  he  sent  I^evites  [nine  are  named]  .  .  .  ;  and  with  them 
Elishama  and  Jehoram,  priests.  And  they  taught  in  Judah, 
and  had  the  book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord  with  them,  and  went 
about  throughout  all  the  cities  of  Judah,  and  taught  the  peo- 
ple."^ It  is  not  necessary  to  quote  the  many  other  passages  in 
which  reference  is  made  to  Mosaic  institutions  and  writings.^ 

In  order  to  nullify  the  testimony  of  Chronicles  to  the  early 
existence  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  analytics  represent  them  as  a 
late  production,  and  deny  their  historical  character.  Wellhausen 
maintains  that  they  were  written  three  hundred  years  after  the 
exile,  and,  besides,  charges  their  author  with  invention,  fiction, 
discrepancy,  contradiction,  mutilation,  deliberate  mutilation,  and 
with  nearly  everything  else  that  is  improper  and  discreditable  in 
a  historical  writer.  He  sneers  at  what  he  calls  ' '  the  law-blessed 
(crazed)  fancy  of  the  chronicler."  '' 

Though  these  critics  endeavor  to  set  aside  the  testimony  of 
the  books  of  Kings  by  the  hypothesis  of  interpolations,  and  that 
of  Chronicles  by  the  charge  of  historical  untrustworthiness, 
they  are  more  than  willing  to  avail  themselves  of  any  state- 
ments contained  in  one  or  the  other  that  seem  in  any  way 
favorable  to  the  analytic  hypothesis.  Hence  they  accept,  at 
least  in  part,  the  account  of  the  finding  of  the  book  of  the  law 

1 II.  Kings  14  :  5, 6.    «  Deut.  24  :  16.    ^  II.  Kings  10 :  31 ;  17  :  13, 34, 37 ;  23 :  21, 24, 25. 
*  I.  Chr.  22 :  13.  « II.  Chr.  17  :  7-9. 

«I.  Chr.  16 :  40 ;  22 :  12, 13  ;  II.  Chr.  5 :  10 ;  6 :  16 ;  12 : 1 ;  33 :  8  ;  34 :  14, 15, 19 ; 
35 ;  12,  26.  ' "  Gesetzesseligen  Phantasie." — Prolegomena,  p.  201. 


HISTORICAI.  BOOKS  AFTER  JOSHUA  211 

in  the  temple,  by  Hilkiah,  in  the  time  of  King  Josiah.^  The 
most  of  the  analysts  claim  that  Deuteronomy  was  the  book  that 
was  thus  found.  But  on  this  point  they  are  far  from  unanimous. 
Voltaire  flitted  between  the  hypothesis  that  the  book  thus  found 
was  the  entire  Pentateuch  and  that  other  hypothesis  which 
assigns  its  origin  to  the  exilic  period.  Graf  maintains  that  the 
newly-found  book  was  Deuteronomy.  ^  Wellhausen  dogmat- 
ically affirms  that  the  book,  when  found,  was  purely  a  law-book, 
and  embraced  only  chapters  12-26  of  Deuteronomy. ^  Kuenen 
is  quite  confident  that  it  contained  only  ' '  the  laws  and  exhorta- 
tions that  make  up  the  kernel  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,"  * 
and  he  suggests  that  it  may  have  been  ' '  a  still  smaller  collec- 
tion." ^  Reuss  goes  still  further  and  says,  "Que  le  code  public 
du  temps  du  roi  Josiyah  n'etait  autre  que  ce  que  nous  lisons 
anjourd'hui  dans  le  Deuteronome  chap.  v.  a  xxvi.  and  chap, 
xxviii."®  ("That  the  code  published  in  the  time  of  King 
Josiah  is  what  we  now  read  in  Deuteronomy,  chapters  5-26 
and  chapter  28").  Though  this  critic  concedes  that  much  that 
is  contained  in  Deuteronomy  was  not  new,  being  a  reproduction 
of  former  laws  and  the  teaching  of  the  prophets,  he  yet  seems 
to  hold  that  the  book  contains  no  writing  of  earlier  origin  than 
the  times  of  Josiah  or  the  age  immediately  preceding.  He  also 
brings  in  the  hypothesis  of  additions  and  interpolations  by 
later  writers. 

Such  are  the  disagreements  of  the  leaders  of  the  analytic 
school  in  their  efforts  to  keep  out  of  the  book  found  in  the  temple 
by  Hilkiah  everything  that  does  not  fall  in  with  their  views  and 
theories.  They  cannot  allow  the  lost  and  found  book  to  be  either 
the  Pentateuch  or  even  Deuteronomy  without  endangering  the 
whole  analytic  hypothesis;  hence  their  labors  and  difficulties. 
Of  these  critics  Reuss  is  about  the  only  one  who  thinks  it 
proper  to  argue  the  points  connected  with  this  particular  subject. 
The  others  seem  to  think  it  sufficient  that  they  should  imperi- 
ously inform  mankind  how,  in  their  judgment,  matters  stand. 

One  of  the  contentions  of  Reuss  is,  that  the  book  found  in  the 
temple  was  read  twice  in  one  day,  and  therefore  could  not  have 
been  the  Pentateuch.  "On  nous  dit  que  le  pretre  en  fit  lecture 
au  secretaire,  et  que  celui-ci  alia  incontinent  en  faire  lecture  au 

'  II.  Kings  22  ■  8-13  ;  II.  Chr.  34  :  14-19. 
2  Die  Oeschichtlichen  Bucher  des  Allen  Testaments,  pp.  2-5. 
3"Ein  reines  Gesetzhuch.''''—  Prolegomena,  p.  360. 
*Hexateuch,  p.  214.  ^  Idem,  p.  215.  «  TJHistoire  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  160. 


212  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OP   THE    PENTATEUCH 

roi.  Deux  fois  en  un  seul  jour,  lecture  du  Pentateuque  entier  !"^ 
("They  tell  us  that  the  priest  read  it  to  the  secretary,  and  that 
the  latter  went  immediately  to  read  it  to  the  king.  The  reading 
of  the  entire  Pentateuch  twice  in  a  single  day  ! ")  We  have  here 
both  inaccuracy  and  assumption.  The  record  does  not  say  that 
Hilkiah  read  the  book  to  Shaphan,  but  that  Hilkiah  gave  the 
book  to  Shaphan  and  that  he  read  it.  ^  But  the  chief  error  of 
Reuss  and  other  critics  is  the  groundless  assumption  that  the 
reading  of  the  book  by  Shaphan  and  his  reading  of  it  to  the 
king  necessarily  took  place  on  the  same  day.  For  anything  that 
is  contained  in  the  narrative,  these  readings  may  have  taken 
place,  each  at  several  sittings,  on  dijBferent  days.  As  well  might 
our  critic  include  the  assembling  of  the  people  and  the  reading 
of  the  book  to  them,  and,  indeed,  all  the  events  recorded  in  the 
two  chapters,  for  there  is  no  break  in  the  narrative,  and  nearly 
all  the  verses  are  connected  by  the  copulative  *  *  and ' '  (  Hebrew, 
waw).  Reuss  and  his  fellow-critics  ignore  the  obvious  fact  that 
in  Bible  history  the  time  intervening  between  one  event  and  an- 
other is  often  passed  over  in  silence.  Perhaps  some  critic,  in  the 
advocacy  of  his  favorite  notion,  will  maintain  that  according  to 
the  Bible  narrative  Noah  built  the  ark,  gathered  in  all  the  ani- 
mals, and  stowed  away  all  the  necessary  food  in  a  single  da}'. 

Again,  it  is  a  groundless  assumption  that  the  whole  book  was 
read,  either  by  Shaphan  for  himself,  or  to  the  king.  The  sacred 
narrative  neither  says  nor  implies  it.  The  statement  is,  indeed, 
that  the  book  was  read,  but  there  is  a  difference  between  reading 
a  book  or  newspaper  and  reading  it  through.  We  have  an  illus- 
tration of  this  in  the  account  of  the  reading  of  Jeremiah's  roll 
to  King  Jehoiakim.  *  *  And  Jehudi  read  it  in  the  ears  of  the 
king,  and  in  the  ears  of  all  the  princes  which  stood  beside  the 
king."  But  not  all  the  roll  was  read,  for  it  is  immediately 
added,  ''That  when  Jehudi  had  read  three  or  four  leaves,  he 
[the  king]  cut  it  with  the  penknife,  and  cast  it  into  the  fire  that 
was  on  the  hearth. ' '  ^ 

The  further  plea  of  Reuss  that  the  Pentateuch  is  not  adapted 
to  produce  the  profound  impression  that  is  ascribed  to  the  book 
found  in  the  temple  is  altogether  futile,  since  it  is  not  maintained 
that  the  book  contained  anything  that  is  contradicted  in  the 
Pentateuch.  Surely,  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch  would 
not  neutralize  the  influence  of  Deuteronomy,  or  whatever  portion 

1  L'Histoire  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  159.  «  n.  Kings  22  :  8.  ;  ^  Jer.  36 :  21,  23. 


HISTORICAL  BOOKS  AFTER  JOSHUA  213 

of  it  our  critics  are  willing  to  admit  was  contained  in  the  book 
found  in  the  temple.  Besides,  Hilkiah  and  Shaphan,  who  were 
favorable  to  the  reformation,  would  be  sure  to  call  the  attention 
of  Josiah  to  those  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  that  demanded  the 
changes  they  desired. 

The  proof  that  the  book  found  in  the  temple,  whether  the 
whole  of  the  Pentateuch  or  only  a  part  of  it,  was  of  Mosaic 
origin,  is  as  follows  : 

( 1 )  The  direct  testimony  of  both  Kings  and  Chronicles.  The 
book  is  called  expressly  the  "book  of  the  law"  and  the  "book 
of  the  covenant."  ^  It  is  idle  to  say  that  this  language  does  not 
describe  the  book  as  an  ancient  one,  and  as  one  that  had  origi- 
nated in  Mosaic  times.  Besides  this,  it  is  expressly  stated  that 
Josiah  in  his  reformation  proceeded  "  according  to  all  the  law  of 
Moses."  ^  Still  further,  it  is  declared  that  this  reformation  was 
carried  on  "according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  by  the  hand  of 
Moses,"  and  "as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  Moses. "'^  It  is 
clearly  in  evidence,  then,  that  what  was  found  in  the  temple  by 
Hilkiah  and  became  the  guide  to  Josiah  and  the  people  in  their 
reformatory  acts  was  the  book  and  the  law  of  Moses.  If  this 
testimony  is  not  to  be  accepted,  we  may  as  well  treat  the  whole 
account  as  a  fiction  and  deny  that  anj^  book  at  all  was  found  in 
the  temple.  The  course  of  Reuss  and  his  fellow-critics  in  this 
affair,  as  in  many  others,  is  entirely  arbitrary,  inconsistent,  and 
illogical.  They  introduce  witnesses  to  prove  that  Deuteronomy 
was  first  published  and  became  known  in  the  time  of  King 
Josiah,  and  was  written  not  earlier  than  the  reign  of  Manasseh. 
But  when  their  own  witnesses  testify  that  the  newly-found  book 
was  a  very  old  one  and  of  Mosaic  origin,  they  turn  against  them 
and  declare  them  to  be  untruthful  and  untrustworthy.  In  a 
civil  court  an  attorney  is  not  allowed  to  assail  witnesses  that  he 
has  himself  introduced. 

(2)  Evidently  Hilkiah,  Shaphan,  the  king,  and  all  who  saw 
the  newly-found  book  must  have  known  whether  it  was  a  new  or 
an  old  one.  Hilkiah  and  Shaphan  certainly  were  intelligent 
enough  to  distinguish  between  a  book  written  in  the  time  of 
Moses  and  one  written  in  the  time  of  Manasseh  or  Josiah.  Reuss 
asks  "how  the  priest  and  the  scribe  could  read  so  fluentl3''  and 
readily  a  writing  eight  centuries  old."  Our  critic  is  still  pro- 
ceeding on  the  mistaken  and  absurd  notion  that  all  the  events 

» II.  Kings  22 :  8 ;  23 :  2.  « II.  Kings  23  :  25.  ^  n.  chr.  35 :  6, 12, 


214  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

connected  with  this  aflfair  took  place  in  a  single  day.  But 
scholars  in  our  own  day  can  readily  read  manuscripts  even  one 
thousand  five  hundred  years  old,  though  written  in  a  dead  and 
foreign  language.  Surely  these  scholarly  Jews  might  readily 
read  in  their  mother-tongue  a  book  not  more  than  eight  hundred 
years  old.  And,  besides,  if  the  newly-found  book  was  a  produc- 
tion of  their  own  age,  they  were  not  such  ignoramuses  as  to 
mistake  it  for  an  ancient  book,  written  in  Mosaic  times,  eight 
centuries  before.  But  they  call  it  the  book  of  the  law  and  the  book 
of  the  coveiiant.  If,  then,  it  was  not  an  ancient  book,  the  old 
book  of  the  law  and  of  the  covenant  which  had  been  known  and 
reverenced  in  former  times,  these  men  must  have  been  guilty  of 
willful  and  deliberate  misrepresentation  and  lying.  If  they  were 
not,  the  analytic  theory  in  regard  to  the  origin  of  Deuteronomy 
is  false. 

(3)  The  book  itself  purported  to  be  ancient.  It  enjoined  old 
laws  and  commandments.  The  very  first  reading  of  it  aroused 
apprehension  in  Josiah  of  divine  displeasure  and  punishment. 
He  was  alarmed  because,  as  he  said,  "our  fathers  have  not 
hearkened  unto  the  words  of  this  book."^  It  certainly  was  not 
the  promulgation  of  new  laws,  but  the  neglect  and  violation  of 
laws  enacted  long  before,  that  caused  the  king  to  rend  his  clothes 
and  to  fear  the  wrath  of  the  Lord. 

(4)  Deuteronomy  itself  speaks  of  a  book  of  the  law  again 
and  again. ^  When  Moses  had  finished  "writing  the  words  of 
this  law  in  a  book,"  he  commanded  the  lycvites,  saying,  "Take 
this  book  of  the  law,  and  put  it  in  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  of  the  lyord  your  God."^  The  only  way  to  avoid  the 
conclusion  that  this  book  of  the  law,  written  by  Moses,  and 
placed  by  Moses'  command  in  the  ark,  was  the  book  of  the  law 
found  afterward  in  the  temple,  is  simply  to  deny  the  truthfulness 
of  the  history. 

(5)  Josiah  and  his  people,  in  order  to  avert  the  wrath  of  God 
on  account  of  their  own  and  their  fathers'  neglect  and  violations 
of  God's  laws  as  contained  in  the  newly-found  book,  prosecuted 
the  already-begun  reformation  more  vigorously  than  before. 
The  facts  stated  in  regard  to  this  reformation  indicate  that  the 
laws  which  guided  the  reformers  are  contained,  not  in  Deuteron- 
omy alone,  but  at  least  partly  in  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 

( ^  )    Josiah  and  the  people  engaged  * '  to  perform  the  words  of 

» II.  Kings  22 :  13.  2  Deut.  28  :  58 ;  29  :  21 ;  30 :  10.  =»  Deut.  31 :  24-26. 


HISTORICAI,  BOOKS  AFTEJR  JOSHUA  215 

this  covenant  that  were  written  in  this  book."  ^  This  points  to 
Exodus  24  :  7,  8. 

{d)  One  of  the  prevalent  sins  at  that  time  was  idolatry,  and 
this  caused  apprehensions  of  divine  wrath  and  punishment.  The 
reformers  burned  the  vessels  of  Baal ,  stamped  the  images  to  powder, 
and  put  down  the  idolatrous  priCvSts.^  The  warrant  for  these  pro- 
ceedings is  found  in  Exodus  23  :  24 ;  34  :  13  ;  Numbers  7,3  '•  52. 

{c)  The  sodomites  were  suppressed.^  The  Levitical  law  pro- 
vided capital  punishment  for  such  transgressors.  Leviticus  18  : 
22,  29;  20:  13. 

(d)  Josiali  defiled  Topheth,  so  that  the  offerings  of  children  to 
Molech  might  cease.*    See  Leviticus  i8  :  21;  20 :  1-5. 

{e)  The  priests  of  the  high  places  were  destroyed.^  Leviticus 
26 :  30. 

(y* )  The  wizards  and  witches  were  destroyed.  ^  Exodus  22  : 
18;  Leviticus  19:  31  ;  20 :  27. 

{g)  The  Passover  was  observed  with  unusual  solemnity.'' 
The  institution  of  the  Passover  and  directions  for  its  observance 
are  recorded  in  the  three  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch :  Exo- 
dus 12 :  3-28 ;  13  :  3-10 ;  23  :  15  ;  34  :  18  ;  Leviticus  23  :  5  ;  Numbers 
9:  2-14;  28:  16,  17.  It  is  indeed  true  that  the  Passover  is  men- 
tioned in  Deuteronomy  ; «  but  the  day  of  the  month  on  which 
this  feast  was  to  be  celebrated  is  not  there  specified,  nor  what 
kind  of  animal  the  victim  should  be,  nor  is  anything  said  about 
the  sprinkling  of  its  blood,  the  cooking  and  eating  of  its  flesh, 
nor  about  many  other  things  pertaining  to  the  manner  of  observ- 
ing this  ordinance.  If  left  to  the  guidance  of  Deuteronomy  alone 
in  the  observance  of  this  feast,  Josiah  and  his  people  would  not 
have  known  how  to  proceed.  The  same  is  true,  in  a  large  meas- 
ure, in  regard  to  other  reforms  introduced  in  Josiah' s  time. 
Some  of  the  laws  and  regulations  which  were  then  resuscitated 
and  enforced  are  indeed  mentioned  in  Deuteronom}^  but  mainly 
for  the  purpose  of  supplement  or  modification.  For  a  full 
knowledge  of  them  we  must  refer  to  the  preceding  books.  The 
reformation  of  Josiah's  time  was  therefore  based,  not  on  Deuter- 
onomy, but  on  the  laws  and  regulations  contained  in  Exodus, 
Leviticus,  and  Numbers;  hence,  these  books  were  known  in 
Josiah's  time,  or  at  least  the  laws  and  regulations  contained  in 
them.     Either  conclusion  is  fatal  to  the  analytic  hypothesis. 

1 II.  Kings  23  :  3.  2 II.  Kings  23 :  4-6.  =»  II.  Kings  23 :  7. 

*II.  Kings  23 :  10.  « II.  Kings  23 :  20.  •  II.  Kings  23  :  24. 

»II.  Kings  23 :  21,  22  ;  II.  Chr.  35  :  1-10.  «  Deut.  IG  :  1-8. 


2l6  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OP^   THE)    PENTATEUCH 

4.     Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 

It  is  not  necessar}'  to  prove  that  the  Pentateuch  was  in  use 
among  the  Jews  immediately  after  their  return  from  Babylon. 
The  hypothesis  of  the  anal^^sts  is,  that  the  first  four  books  and 
the  priestly  code  are  of  exilic  origin.  The  foremost  champion 
of  the  analytic  school,  in  his  usual  oracular  stj'le,  says,  "Gleich- 
wie  bezeugt  wird,  dass  das  Deuteronomium  im  Jahr  621  bekannt 
geworden,  bis  dahin  unbekannt  gewesen  ist,  geradeso  wird 
bezeugt,  dass  die  anderweitige  Thora  des  Pentateuchs  —  denn 
das  Gesetz  Ezra's  der  ganze  Pentateuch  gewesen  ist,  unterliegt 
keinem  Zweifel  —  im  Jahre  444  bekannt  geworden,  bis  dahin 
unbekannt  gewesen  ist"^  ("As  it  is  in  evidence  that  Deuter- 
onomy became  known  in  the  year  621,  until  which  time  it  was 
unknown,  so  also  it  is  in  evidence  that  the  further  torah  of  the 
Pentateuch — for  that  the  law  of  Ezra  was  the  whole  Pentateuch 
does  not  admit  of  a  doubt — became  known  in  the  year  444,  until 
which  time  it  was  unknown"). 

Our  critics,  then,  hold  that  Ezra  introduced  the  Pentateuch 
after  the  exile,  though  they  may  not  be  entirely  agreed  as  to 
whether  he  was  the  writer  or  only  the  chief  redactor  of  it ;  and 
their  belief  is  founded  mainly  on  the  testimony  of  the  books  of 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  It  is  admitted,  then,  that  Ezra  introduced 
the  Pentateuch.  It  was,  of  course,  written  before  it  was  intro- 
duced. But  who  wrote  it,  and  when  was  it  written?  Well- 
hausen  expresses  the  opinion  that  Ezra  was  only  * '  the  real  and 
chief  redactor  of  the  Pentateuch."  Be  it  so.  It,  of  course,  was 
in  exivStence  before  he  began  to  work  upon  it.  Whence  came  it 
into  his  hands?  May  not  the  Pentateuch  be  the  book  which  was 
found  in  the  temple  in  Josiah's  time,  and  which  was  recognized 
as  ancient,  and  as  being  the  law-book  of  Moses  ? 

( I )  The  law-book  which  Ezra  introduced  was  declared  by  him 
impliedly,  if  not  expressly,  to  be  the  production  of  Moses. 
"This  Ezra  went  up  from  Babylon  ;  and  he  was  a  ready  scribe  in 
the  law  of  Moses,  which  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  had  given." ^ 
"And  all  the  people  gathered  themselves  together  as  one  man 
into  the  street  that  was  before  the  water-gate ;  and  they  spake 
unto  Ezra  the  scribe  to  bring  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses, 
which  the  Lord  had  commanded  to  Israel.  "^  It  is  thus  shown 
that  Ezra  represented  the  book  and  law  which  he  introduced  to 
be  the  book  and  the  law  of  Moses.     It  is  further  shown  that 

» Wellhausen,  Prolegomena,  p.  427  =  Ezra  7:6.  ^  Neh.  8 :  1,  2. 


HISTORICAI.  BOOKS  AFTER  JOSHUA  217 

Nehemiah  joined  with  him  in  this  representation.  1  Now,  if  the 
Pentateuch  was  a  production  of  their  age,  they  must  have  known 
it,  and  their  representing  and  declaring  it  to  be  of  Mosaic  origin 
must  have  involved  willful,  deliberate,  and  long-continued  de- 
ception and  falsehood.  It  is  of  no  avail  to  attempt  to  soften  this 
charge  of  deception  and  falsehood  by  the  use  of  the  terms  legal 
fiction  and  pious  fraicd.  Ikying  does  not  lose  its  criminality, 
though  practiced  in  the  name  of  God  and  professedly  for  a  holy 
purpose. 

(2)  The  analysts,  in  dealing  with  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  pur- 
sue, as  is  of  frequent  occurrence  with  them,  an  arbitrary, 
inconsistent,  and  illogical  course.  They  accept  the  testimony 
of  these  books  just  so  far  as  it  harmonizes  with  their  precon- 
ceived views,  but  so  far  as  it  does  not  they  discredit  it  and  cast 
it  aside.  All  that  they  believe  or  know  in  regard  to  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Pentateuchal  laws  after  the 
exile  they  obtain  from  Kzra  and  Nehemiah  and  accept  on  their 
testimony  alone ;  but  they  accuse  these  same  witnesses  of  mis- 
representation and  falsehood,  when  they  testify  that  these  books 
and  laws  did  not  originate  in  their  own,  but  in  former  times. 
The  statements  in  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  in  regard  to 
the  improper  observance  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  from  the 
time  of  Joshua  on  down  to  the  return  from  Babylon,  and  other 
such  matters,  are  accepted  as  true  and  trustworthy,  but  the 
statement  that  the  book  of  the  law  came  from  Moses  is  treated 
as  incorrect  and  false.  Nor  may  our  critics  plead  that  the  testi- 
mony of  these  witnesses  on  this  point  is  rejected  on  the  ground 
that,  living  long  after  Moses,  they  were  incompetent  to  testify 
in  regard  to  his  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  and  its  laws  ;  for 
their  testimony  that  these  did  not  originate  in  their  times,  a 
point  in  regard  to  which  they  were  competent  witnesses,  is 
rejected  also.  Evidently  the  principle  on  which  the  critics 
proceed  is  this,  that  all  testimony  which  conflicts  with  their 
preconceived  views  is  to  be  rejected  as  false. 

(3)  According  to  the  hypothesis  that  the  first  four  books  of 
the  Pentateuch  and  the  laws  contained  in  them  were  gotten  up 
during  the  exile,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  certainly  engaged  in  a 
stupendous  undertaking  in  endeavoring  to  palm  off  these  books 
and  laws  as  the  work  of  Moses.  But  how  admirably  they  suc- 
ceeded !    They  completely  deceived  their  own  countrymen,  and 

1  Neh.  8  :  9. 


2l8  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

nearly  the  entire  intelligent  world  besides.  The  frand  has  lasted 
for  more  than  two  thousand  years,  and  has  not  yet  fully  run  its 
course.  To  undo  the  deception  and  expose  the  fraud  has  cost 
"  the  higher  critics"  immense  and  long-continued  labor  and  has 
tasked  their  learning,  ingenuity,  and  skill  to  the  utmost ;  and, 
withal,  their  success  is  only  partial.  What  adepts  in  the  art  of 
deception  Ezra  and  his  coadjutors  must  have  been  ! 

(4)  Yet  on  the  hypothesis  that  Kzra  intended  to  deceive  man- 
kind in  regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  unac- 
countable that  he  omitted  to  do  some  things  that  he  might  have 
done  in  furtherance  of  this  design.  The  analysts  maintain  that 
the  Pentateuch  itself  does  not  claim  to  be  the  production  of 
Moses.  This  is  one  of  their  trusted  arguments.  They  proceed 
upon  the  idea  that  if  there  were  only  a  declaration  in  the  Penta- 
teuch itself,  expressly  affirming  its  Mosaic  origin,  the  question 
would  be  forever  and  completely  settled.  Whj^,  then,  did  not 
Ezra  and  his  shrewd  and  skillful  cooperators  insert  such  a 
declaration?  Wellhausen  is  of  the  opinion  that  Ezra  went  from 
Babylon  to  Jerusalem  carrying  in  his  hand  the  Pentateuch  ready 
to  be  fastened  on  the  returned  Jews  as  the  work  of  Moses,  and 
he  can  onl}^  conjecture  why  he  waited  fourteen  years  before  pro- 
ceeding to  promulgate  it  as  such.  ^  Reuss  affirms  that  it  is  in- 
dubitably proved  that  he  "did  not  bring  it  all  redacted  from 
Babylon,  and  that  it  required  him  to  labor  thirteen  years,  if  not 
to  make  out  a  fair  copy,  at  least  to  secure  its  acceptance. "  ^ 
While  engaged  in  working  over  and  correcting  the  Pentateuch 
and  getting  it  ready  for  promulgation  as  the  book  of  Moses,  why 
did  he  not,  in  the  beginning  of  each  book,  insert  some  such 
declaration  as  this:  ''The  words  (or  the  writing)  of  Moses,  the 
man  of  God ' '  ?  This  would  have  been  the  probable  procedure  of 
a  man  who  was  intending  to  publish  a  book  in  another's  name, 
and  he  thus  would  have  conformed  to  the  prevalent  style  in 
Ezra's  own  time,  as  shown  by  the  writings  of  the  prophets. 

(5)  The  stjde  of  the  Pentateuch  is  adverse  to  the  hypothesis 
that  it,  or  a  large  portion  of  it,  was  written  by  Ezra,  or  in  Ezra's 
time,  or  that  it  was  much  changed  by  Ezra  or  by  any  redactor  in 
Ezra's  time.  Doubtless  many  a  modern  critic  considers  himself 
a  competent  judge  of  Hebrew  style.  Even  Thomas  Paine  argues 
from  the  stjde  of  Deuteronomy  against  the  Mosaic  authorship. 
Yet  style  in  general  is  a  matter  largely  of  taste,  and  most  assur- 

*  Prolegomena,  p.  424  sqq.  ^  L^Histoire  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  233. 


HISTORICAI,  BOOKS  AFTER  JOSHUA  219 

edly  there  are  very  few  competent  judges  of  the  peculiarities  of 
style  in  Hebrew.  But  we  certainly  risk  nothing  in  saying  that 
all  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  these  books  in  all  their  parts, 
even  those  parts  that  are  said  by  critics  to  have  been  supplied  by 
editors,  redactors,  or  interpolators,  are  written  in  pure  Hebrew. 
Professor  Green,  of  Princeton,  who  is  certainl}-  one  of  the  most 
accomplished  Hebrew  scholars  of  our  age,  says,  "The  language 
of  the  Pentateuch  is,  throughout,  the  Hebrew  of  the  purest 
period,  with  no  trace  of  later  words,  or  forms,  or  constructions, 
or  of  the  Chaldaisms  of  the  exile.  "^  Testimony  to  the  same 
effect  has  been  given  by  Tn.a.ny  other  distinguished  scholars  and 
critics.  The  purit}^  of  the  language  of  the  Pentateuch  is  by  no 
means  a  favorite  idea  with  the  analytic  critics.  It  would  suit 
them  much  better  to  find  in  the  Pentateuch  many  of  the  later 
Hebrew  words,  Aramaisms,  and  other  characteristics  of  the  post- 
exilic  stjde.  But  even  they  are  compelled  expressly  or  impliedly 
to  confess  the  purity  of  the  Pentateuchal  Hebrew.  Reuss  saj'-s, 
' '  La  langue  du  Pentateuque  est  a  peu  pres  la  meme  que  celle  de 
la  presque  totalite  des  livres  de  I'Ancien  Testament"-  ("The 
language  of  the  Pentateuch  is  almost  the  same  with  that  of 
nearl}^  all  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament").  There  are 
some  of  the  Old  Testament  books,  then,  that  differ  much  in  st3'le 
from  the  Pentateuch.  These  confessedly  are  Chronicles,  Daniel, 
Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  all  of  which  were  written  after  the  trans- 
portation to  Babylon,  and  contain  words,  sentences,  and  whole 
passages  in  Aramaic.  On  this  point  the  testimou}^  of  Professor 
Driver  is,  that  in  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Chronicles  "man}'-  new 
words  appear,  often  of  Aramaic  origin,  occasionally  Persian,  and 
frequently  such  as  continued  in  use  afterwards  in  the  *  New 
Hebrew'  of  the  Mishna."^ 

Now  the  problem  for  the  analytic  critics  to  solve  is  this  :  How 
came  it  to  pass  that  men  who  had  such  a  mixed  and  mongrel 
st3de  after  all  wrote  the  purest  Hebrew,  as  it  is  found  in  the 
Pentateuch  ?  Wh}'  did  not  Ezra  and  his  colaborers  put  some  of 
their  Aramaic  idioms,  new  words,  or  words  with  a  new  meaning 
into  the  five  books  w^hich  they  either  wrote  or  redacted  ?  It  is  in 
vain  to  plead  that  Ezra  was  not  the  author,  but  only  one  of  the 
redactors,  of  the  Pentateuch.  For  in  that  case  there  ought  to  be 
man}'  passages  marked  by  the  impurities  of  the  exilic  style  of 

1  Religious  Encyclojiedia,  Schaff-Herzog,  Vol.  III.,  p.  1799. 

«  L^Histoire  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  13o. 

» Introduction  to  the  lAierature  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  473,  519. 


220  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    O^  THK    PENTATEJUCH 

the  redactors.  Besides,  the  analytic  hypothesis  is,  that  the  first 
four  books  of  the  Pentateuch  were  gotten  up  in  exilic  times,  and 
hence  must  have  been  composed  by  an  author  or  authors  whose 
style  was  equally  impure  with  that  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Daniel, 
and  the  author  of  Chronicles. 

(6)  Another  difficulty  presents  itself.  If  the  Pentateuch 
was  originated  by  Ezra  or  near  his  time,  how  comes  it  that  it 
contains  no  allusion  to  the  temple,  nor  to  its  worship,  nor  to 
Jerusalem,  nor  to  David,  Solomon,  or  any  of  the  kings,  nor  to 
any  historical  event  after  the  time  of  Moses  ?  It  is,  perhaps,  not 
altogether  inconceivable  that  a  set  of  writers  in  exilic  or  post- 
exilic  times,  intent  on  fastening  a  priestly  code  of  their  own 
devising  on  their  people,  manufactured  four  or  five  books  of 
history  and  law,  partly  out  of  preexisting  documents,  and  partly 
out  of  their  own  compositions,  mingling  together  the  original 
documents  with  their  own  interpolations,  substitutions,  addi- 
tions, and  emendations ;  and  that  all  these  writers,  compilers, 
interpolators,  and  emendators,  either  with  or  without  formal 
agreement,  not  only  repressed  their  own  linguistic  peculiarities 
and  weeded  out  those  of  others,  imitating  to  perfection  the  older 
Hebrew  style  which  prevailed  many  centuries  before  their  time, 
but  also,  with  wonderful  self-restraint  and  caution,  avoided 
making  any  statement,  allusion,  or  suggestion  in  regard  to  any 
occurrence  in  all  the  Jewish  history  after  the  death  and  funeral 
of  Moses,  and  succeeded  in  saying  absolutely  nothing  in  all  their 
writings  to  indicate  that  they  did  not  live  in  Mosaic  times.  All 
this  is  perhaps  conceivable,  but  is  certainly  very  improbable. 
How  exceedingly  shrewd  and  skillful  those  exilic  writers,  com- 
pilers, interpolators,  and  redactors  who  got  up  the  Pentateuch 
must  have  been !  Here  is  a  very  weak  point  in  the  analytic 
hypothesis.  Its  advocates  have  much  to  say  about  the  silence 
of  succeeding  writers  concerning  the  Pentateuch,  a  claim  which 
the  traditionalists  deny.  But  here  is  absolute  silence  in  regard 
to  the  whole  Jewish  history  from  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan  to 
the  Babylonian  exile.  ^ 

1  See  Part  III.,  ch.  x. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  PSALMS 

The  testimony  of  the  Psalms  to  the  early  existence  of  the 
Pentateuch  depends  largely  on  their  authorship  and  date.  The 
opponents  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  are  disposed,  and  for  an 
obvious  reason,  to  maintain  that  nearly  all  the  psalms  are  of 
post-exilic  origin.     Our  discussion  of  this  point  must  be  brief. 

That  many  of  the  psalms  were  composed  before  the  exile  is 
shown  by  several  considerations.  The  exiles  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  sing  the  Psalms  in  their  own  beloved  land.^  David  is 
expressly  called  "the  sweet  psalmist  of  Israel,"  which  implies 
that  he  wrote  more  psalms  than  any  one  else.^  Some  of  the 
psalms  are  ascribed  to  David  and  a  few  to  Asaph — seventy -three 
to  one  and  twelve  to  the  other.  It  is  recorded  that  Hezekiah 
commanded  the  lycvites  to  sing  praise  in  *  *  the  words  of  David, 
and  of  Asaph  the  seer."^  Whether  these  twelve  psalms  are 
ascribed  to  Asaph  as  author  or  as  leader  of  the  song  service 
matters  not,  so  far  as  the  question  of  date  is  concerned ;  for  in 
either  case  the  psalms  belong  to  the  age  of  Asaph,  who  was  the 
contemporary  of  David. 

The  psalms  are  at  least  as  old  as  their  superscriptions,  and 
when  the  Septuagint  translation  was  made  the  superscriptions 
were  so  old  that  they  had  become  obscure  in  meaning.  This  ob- 
scurity is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  musical  arrange- 
ments of  the  first  temple  ceased  with  its  destruction.  Gesenius, 
speaking  of  the  words  "To  the  Chief  Musician,"  says,  "This 
inscription  is  wholly  wanting  in  all  the  psalms  of  a  later  age, 
composed  after  the  destruction  of  the  temple  and  its  worship, 
and  its  signification  was  already  lost  in  the  time  of  the  LXX."* 

These  considerations,  with  others  that  might  be  mentioned, 
indicate  that  some  of  the  psalms  are  as  ancient  as  the  time  of 
David. 

Taking  the  Seventy-eighth  as  an  example,  we  find  both  exter- 

>  Ps.  137  :  3,  4.  2 II.  Sam.  23 : 1.  »  u.  chr.  29 :  30.  «  Lexicmi,  p.  688. 

221 


222  MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

nal  and  internal  evidence  of  its  antiquity.  ( i )  It  is  ascribed  to 
Asaph.  ( 2 )  It  deals  with  Israelitish  history  from  the  exodus  to 
the  reign  of  King  David.  That  the  writer  did  not  refer  to  events 
after  David's  time  is  accounted  for  only  by  the  fact  that  he  lived 
in  David's  time.  This  psalm  could  have  been  written  only 
by  an  author  who  was  familiar  with  the  history  contained  in 
the  Pentateuch.  It  is  an  epitome  of  Pentateuchal  history.  It 
treats  of  the  plagues  of  Egypt,  the  exodus,  the  crossing  of 
the  Red  Sea,  the  water  from  the  rock,  the  miracle  of  the 
quails  and  of  the  manna,  the  temptation,  the  wandering  in 
the  wilderness,  the  cloud  by  day  and  the  fire  by  night,  the  settle- 
ment in  Canaan,  God's  abandonment  of  Shiloh  in  the  time  of 
the  judges,  and  the  elevation  of  David  to  the  throne  of  Israel. 
Nearly  this  whole  history — all,  indeed,  except  the  reference  to 
the  time  of  the  judges  —  is  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  is 
contained  nowhere  else.  There  is,  besides,  express  mention  of 
the  law.  **For  he  established  a  testimony  in  Jacob,  and  ap- 
pointed a  law  in  Israel,  which  he  commanded  our  fathers,  that 
they  should  make  them  known  to  their  children. "^  The  refer- 
ence here  is  obviously  to  a  written  law,  and  points  to  certain 
portions  of  the  Pentateuch.  ^ 

The  One  Hundred  and  Fifth  Psalm.  A  part  of  this  psalm 
(the  first  fifteen  verses)  is  given  in  Chronicles,  and  is  expressly 
ascribed  to  David.  The  internal  evidence  points  to  Davidic 
times.  Like  the  Seventy-eighth  Psalm,  it  is  a  summary  of 
Pentateuchal  history  from  the  call  of  Abraham  to  the  settlement 
in  Canaan.  It  mentions  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  the 
sojourning  of  the  patriarchs,  the  sale  and  elevation  of  Joseph, 
the  famine,  the  emigration  into  Egypt,  the  increase  of  the 
people,  the  bondage  and  oppression,  the  mission  of  Moses  and 
Aaron,  the  plagues,  the  exodus,  the  cloud  and  fire,  the  miracu- 
lous supply  of  flesh  and  the  bread  from  heaven,  the  water  from 
the  rock,  and  the  taking  of  the  lands  of  the  heathen.  Undoubt- 
edly the  author  of  this  psalm  was  acquainted  with  Jewish 
history,  just  as  we  have  it  in  the  Pentateuch.  There  are  also 
express  references  to  a  code  of  laws  as  existing  in  Mosaic  times. 
For  example,  the  last  verse:  "That  they  might  observe  his 
statutes,  and  keep  his  laws." 

The  One  Hundred  and  Sixth  Psalm  is  in  style,  coUvStruction, 
and  contents  like  the  One  Hundred  and  Fifth,  and  may,  there- 

» Ps.  78 :  5.  «Deut.  33 :  4  ;  6  :  7,  8. 


th:e:  psaIvMS  223 

fore,  be  presumed  to  be  of  the  same  age  and  authorship.  It 
deals  with  the  national  history  previous  to  the  establishment  of 
the  monarchy.  The  idolatry  at  Horeb,  the  rebellion  of  Dathan 
and  Abiram,  and  all  the  events  treated  of  are  related  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch, and  are  related  nowhere  else. 

The  Fifteenth  Psalm  is  declared  by  the  inscription  to  be  Davidic, 
and  is  admitted  to  be  such  by  some  of  the  more  prominent 
analytic  critics.  It  refers  to  the  law  of  usury,  which  is  found 
only  in  the  Pentateuch.^ 

The  Eighteenth  Psalm  is  shown  by  several  considerations  to 
be  one  of  David's,  (i)  In  the  title  it  is  ascribed  to  him.  (2) 
The  occasion  of  his  writing  it  is  stated.  (3)  This  psalm  is  re- 
corded in  the  Second  Book  of  Samuel  as  the  production  of  David, 
and  the  time  and  occasion  of  his  writing  it  are  there  mentioned.  ^ 
In  this  psalm  there  is  reference  made  to  the  law,  obviously  a 
written  code.  "For  all  his  judgments  were  before  me,  and  I 
did  not  put  away  his  statutes  from  me."^ 

The  Nineteenth  Psalm  is  ascribed  to  David  in  the  title  and 
also  inscribed  to  the  chief  musician.  It  is  generally  admitted 
to  be  the  production  of  the  chief  psalmist.  That  it  refers  to  a 
written  code  of  laws  enjoining  moral  duties,  can  scarcely  be 
doubted.  The  terms  and  language  employed — **law,"  "testi- 
mony," **  statutes,"  "commandment,"  "judgments  of  the  Lord," 
"more  to  be  desired  .  .  .  than  gold,"  "sweeter  .  .  .  than 
honey,"  "converting  the  soul,"  "making  wise  the  simple," 
"rejoicing  the  heart,"  "enlightening  the  eyes,"  "true  and 
righteous  altogether" — seem  to  be  not  only  written  precepts, 
but  those  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  doubtless  would  be 
admitted  to  be  such,  provided  this  did  not  logically  necessitate 
the  abandonment  of  a  favorite  hypothesis. 

The  Fortieth  Psalm  has  the  double  title,  "To  the  Chief 
Musician.  A  Psalm  of  David."  The  Fifty-first  Psalm  has  the 
same  title,  and,  besides,  the  occasion  of  David's  writing  it  is 
stated.  The  Sixty-sixth  Psalm  is  inscribed  "To  the  Chief 
Musician." 

I.  These  psalms  indicate  acquaintance  with  the  Penta- 
teuchal  ritual.  The  different  kinds  of  sacrifices  and  services  are 
clearly  distinguished  —  prayer,  songs  of  praise,  vows,  hyssop, 
burnt-offerings,  whole  burnt-offerings,  sin-offerings,  burnt  sacri- 
fices of  fatlings,  of  incense,  of  rams,  bullocks,  and  goats. 

^  Ex.  22 :  25 ;  Lev.  25  :  25 ;  Deut.  23 :  19.  « II.  Sam.  22 : 1-51.  a  V.  22. 


224  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATE:UCH 

2.  In  the  Fortieth  Psalm  the  written  law  is  undoubtedly- 
referred  to  in  these  words:  "In  the  volume  of  the  book  it  is 
written  of  me";  and,  "Yea,  thy  law  is  within  my  heart. "^ 
Gesenius,  who  was  not  overcharged  with  traditional  ideas,  says 
that  herein  is  meant  the  book  of  the  law.^ 

'  Vs.  7, 8,  *  Lexicon^  p.  732. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  PROPHECIES 

1.  Isaiah,  who  prophesied  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
before  the  exile  and  more  than  one  hundred  before  the  time  of 
Josiah,  recognizes  the  prevalence  of  Pentateuchal  ideas,  cus- 
toms, and  regulations.  He  speaks  of  sacrifices  and  ofierings  — 
burnt-offerings,  meat-offerings  ( nil^O )  >   offerings  of  bullocks, 

T   :    • 

rams,  lambs,  and  he-goats  ;  incense,  prayers,  sabbaths,  appointed 
feasts,  fasts,  new  moons,  and  calling  of  assemblies.  ^  Evidently 
Isaiah  was  familiar  with  the  entire  round  of  the  Pentateuchal 
ritual.  Further,  he  was  familiar  with  it  in  full  operation  in  his 
time.  It  is  true,  he  severely  reprimanded  the  people,  but  not 
because  they  engaged  in  the  services  above  mentioned.  It  was 
their  impiety  and  wickedness  in  these  services  that  the  prophet 
denounced.  Even  their  Sabbath  observance  and  their  prayers 
came  in  for  a  share  of  the  prophet's  reprobation ;  not,  however, 
because  pra3-er  and  the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath  are  not  according 
to  the  law  and  will  of  God,  but  because  their  hands  were  full  of 
blood.  2  Just  here  Cheyne,  who  reproves  Driver  for  his  timidity 
and  conservatism,  makes  some  ver}^  remarkable  admissions.  He 
remarks  as  follows :  "  Not  that  Isaiah  intends  to  condemn  ritual 
altogether,  any  more  than  St.  James  does."  He  is  further  willing 
to  admit  that  the  burnt-offerings  may  be  the  guilt-offerings  as 
provided  for  in  lycviticus  ;  that  the  calling  of  assemblies  points 
to  Ivcviticus  23  :  4 ;  the  new  moons  to  Numbers  10 :  10 ;  28 :  11-16 ; 
and  that  Isaiah  4 :  5  is  "  the  first  of  a  long  series  of  references 
to  the  exodus"  (see  Ex.  13:  21,  22). ^  Were  not,  then,  Leviti- 
cus and  Exodus  in  existence  in  the  time  of  Isaiah  ? 

2.  Hosea,  who  prophesied  about  two  hundred  j-ears  before  the 
exile,  often  alludes  to  laws  and  events  as  recorded  in  the  Penta- 
teuch. We  give  references  as  follows  :  Hos.  4  :  6  and  8:1;  Hos. 
5  :  10  with  Deut.  19:  14  and  2^  \  17  ;   Hos.  8:  11  and  12  :  11  with 

1  Isa.  1 :  11-15 ;  57 :  6  ;  58 :  3-7.  « Isa.  1 :  15. 

3  Cheyne  on  Isaiah,  pp.  6,  7,  29. 

15  225 


226  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE^    PENTATEUCH 

Deut.  12:  11-14;  Hos.  9:4  with  Num.  19:  11,  14,  22  and  Deut. 
26 :  14 ;  Hos.  9 :  10  with  Num.  25 :  3-9 ;  Hos.  11:8  with  Gen.  19 : 
24,  25 ;  Hos.  12 :  3-5  with  Gen.  25 :  26  and  32  :  24  and  28 :  30  and 
35 :  15 ;  Hos.  12:9  with  Lev.  23  :  34,  41-44  and  Neh.  8:17;  Hos. 
12  :  12  with  Gen.  29,  30. 

We  call  special  attention  to  one  passage,  as  follows  :  "I  have 
written  to  him  the  great  things  of  my  law,  but  they  were  counted 
as  a  strange  thing. ' '  ^  This  is  a  very  troublesome  passage  to  the 
critics,  who  maintain  that  the  Pentateuchal  law  was  not  formu- 
lated before  the  exile.  The  word  translated  ' '  the  great  things ' ' 
(•j^'^)  properly  means  ten  thousand  or  multitudes.     Hence  the 

passage  at  least  seems  to  indicate  that  there  was  a  large  body  of 
laws  in  the  time  of  Hosea,  two  hundred  years  before  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  first  temple.  This  is  fatal  to  the  analytic  hypothesis. 
Hence,  of  course,  the  advocates  of  this  hypothesis  have  much  to 
say  about  this  passage.  Their  struggles  with  it  are  amusing. 
Kuenen  ( i )  admits  "that  the  existence  of  written  '  torah '  also  is 
expressly  asserted  in  one  passage  (Hos.  8:  12)  and  rendered 
highly  probable  by  the  context  in  others."  He  translates  as 
follows :  "I  write  ( or,  if  I  write )  for  him  ( Israel )  ten  thousand 
of  my  torahs,  they  are  accounted  as  those  of  a  stranger. ' '  But 
(3)  he  pronounces  the  text  itself  doubtful,  not  justified  by  the 
context,  and  "militated  against  by  the  displeasing  hyperbole  of 
ten  thousand,"  (4)  Next  he  is  forced  to  the  alternative  of 
thinking  that  "perhaps  we  must  make  up  our  minds  simply  to 
read,  *  If  I  write  for  him  the  words  of  my  torah ' ' ' — a  hypothetical 
utterance.  (5)  But,  as  a  last  resort,  our  critic,  though  com- 
pelled to  admit  that  in  the  time  of  Hosea  there  was  a  written 
torah,  yet  says,  "  In  case  of  need,  'torah'  may  be  taken  to  refer 
to  the  oral  teaching  of  priests  and  prophets."^  Such  criticism 
needs  neither  answer  nor  comment.  Wellhausen  deals  with  the 
passage,  not  in  a  more  masterly,  but  certainly  in  a  more  magis- 
terial way.  He  endeavors  to  silence  our  passage  as  a  witness 
against  his  views  by  adopting  a  various  reading  and  also  by 
changing  the  translation,  z.  e.y  by  substituting  "instruction  "  for 
' '  law  "  ( in  German,  ' '  Weisungen  "  for  "  Gesetz ").  Having  set- 
tled things  to  his  own  satisfaction  in  this  way,  he  expresses  his 
sympathy  for  the  text  as  having  experienced  ' '  the  undeserved 
misfortune  "  of  being  cited  in  support  of  traditional  views.  Pro- 
fessor W.  R.  Smith  claims  that  the  passage  ought  to  be  translated 

1  Hos.  8  :  12.  2  Hezateuch,  pp.  175-178. 


THE   PROPHECIES  227 

as  follows :  "Though  I  wrote  to  him  my  torah  in  ten  thousand 
precepts,  they  would  be  esteemed  as  a  strange  thing. ' '  He  admits 
the  torah  or  law  here  spoken  of  to  be  Mosaic,  but  claims  that  it 
was  tuiwritten.^  Professor  Briggs  would  translate,  "Though  I 
write  for  him  my  law  in  ten  thousand  precepts,  they  are  accounted 
as  a  strange  thing,"  but  admits  that  in  the  passage  there  is  "  a 
general  reference  to  the  fact  that  divine  laws  were  recorded.  "^ 
In  regard  to  this  passage,  we  remark  as  follows : 

( 1 )  About  the  only  point  of  agreement  concerning  it,  among 
these  critics,  is  that  it  must  be  construed  so  as  not  to  favor  the 
traditional  belief.  The  difficulty  of  this  undertaking  is  demon- 
strated by  their  antagonistic  efforts  and  discordant  interpretations. 

( 2 )  In  one  sense,  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen  are  right ;  for  if 
Hosea  here  speaks  of  a  divine  law  in  ten  thousand  precepts  as 
already  existing,  the  analytic  theory  of  the  gradual  formation 
of  the  Torah  by  evolution  is  certainly  in  danger.  Hence  the 
necessity  of  getting  rid  of  the  passage  by  impeaching  its  gen- 
uineness and  introducing  a  various  reading. 

(3)  We  suggest  that  the  analysts  might  get  rid  of  this 
troublesome  passage  by  their  much-used  expedient  of  supposing 
that  it  was  not  written  by  Hosea,  but  was  inserted  b}^  some 
redactor  in  the  time  of  Ezra. 

(4)  As  to  the  employment,  in  this  passage,  of  the  imperfect 
tense  of  the  Hebrew  verb,  this  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  usual 
interpretation,  since  in  Hebrew,  as  in  English,  the  past  is  often 
represented  as  present. 

3.  Amos,  who  prophesied  about  two  centuries  before  the 
exile,  makes  many  allusions  to  Pentateuchal  laws,  customs,  and 
ideas.  "Also  I  brought  you  up  from  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  led 
you  forty  years  through  the  wilderness,  to  possess  the  land  of 
the  Amorite."^  This  very  language  is  found  in  Deuteronomy 
8:  2  and  in  other  places  in  the  Pentateuch.  "And  I  raised  up 
of  your  sons  for  prophets,  and  of  your  young  men  for  Naza- 
rites.  .  .  .  But  ye  gave  the  Nazarites  wine  to  drink."'*  Compare 
with  Numbers  6:  2,  3.  "Bring  your  sacrifices  every  morning, 
and  your  tithes  after  three  years.  "^  See  Exodus  29:  30  ;  Num- 
bers 28:  4;  Deuteronomy  14:  28;  26:  12.  "And  offer  a  sacrifice 
of  thanksgiving  with  leaven,  and  proclaim  and  publish  the  free 
offerings."^     See  Leviticus  7 :  13  ;  23:  17;  22:  19-21;  Deuteron- 

1  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  p.  297. 

'  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateicch,  p.  14. 

3  Amos  2 :  10.  *  Amos  2 :  11, 12.  »  Amos  4:4.  « Amos  t :  ">. 


228  MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH 

omy  12  :  6.  "I  hate,  I  despise  3'our  feast  days,  and  I  will  not 
smell  in  your  solemn  assemblies.  Though  ye  offer  me  burnt- 
offerings  and  your  meat-offerings,  I  will  not  accept  them  ;  neither 
will  I  regard  the  peace-offerings  of  3'our  fat  beasts.  "^  See  the 
regulations  in  Leviticus  2^  :  2-36  ;  i  :  3-14  ;  2:1;  3:1.  "When 
will  the  new  moon  be  gone?"^  See  Numbers  10:  10.  Thus 
Amos  alludes  to  the  tithes,  the  three-year  tithes,  the  feasts,  the 
convocations,  the  Nazarites  and  their  abstinence  from  wine, 
the  daily  sacrifices,  the  burnt-offerings,  the  meat-offerings,  the 
peace-offerings,  the  free-will  offerings,  the  new  moons,  the  Sab- 
baths, and  nearly  all  the  Levitical  institutions.  Had  there  been 
in  the  writings  of  this  prophet  an  express  reference  to  the  laws 
and  books  of  Moses,  the  advocates  of  the  analytic  hypothesis 
would,  of  course,  have  claimed  an  interpolation  by  a  later  hand, 
or  that  Hosea  lived  after  the  exile. 

4.  Joel  also  mentions  the  meat-offering  and  the  drink-offering, 
the  priests  and  the  altar,  sanctifying  the  fast,  calling  an  assembly, 
and  sanctifying  the  assembly,  and  he  makes  other  allusions  to 
Pentateuchal  laws  and  institutions.  ^  That  his  prophecy  pre- 
supposes the  Pentateuch  seems  to  be  admitted,  as  is  evinced  by 
the  fact  that  the  analytic  critics  have  finally  found  it  necessary 
to  assign  to  it  a  post-exilic  date  in  order  to  maintain  their 
hypothesis  of  the  late  origin  of  the  Pentateuch. 

1  Amos  5 :  21,  22.  «  Amos  8:5.  ^  Joel  1 :  9, 13  ;  2  :  17  ;  1 :  14 ;  2  :  16. 


CHAPTER   V 

THE  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT,  INCLUDING  THE  QUESTION  OF  THE 
CENTRALIZATION  OF  WORSHIP 

Our  proposition  is,  that  the  history  demonstrates  that  the 
Levitical  and  Deuteronomic  laws  were  in  operation  long  before 
the  times  in  which,  according  to  the  analytic  theories,  the  Penta- 
teuchal  books  came  into  existence. 

The  opponents  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuchal 
laws  and  books  claim  the  evidence  of  history  to  be  in  their  favor. 
They  contest  every  inch  of  ground  in  maintaining  that  according 
to  biblical  narratives  the  practices  of  the  Israelites  in  general, 
even  the  best  and  most  intelligent  among  them,  on  down  to  the 
time  of  King  Josiah,  were  such  as  to  indicate  that  they  knew 
nothing  of  these  books  and  laws.  They  reason  as  follows :  If 
Joshua,  Gideon,  Manoah,  Samuel,  and  David,  and  other  good 
and  intelligent  Israelites  who  were  their  contemporaries,  had 
known  the  Pentateuchal  laws,  they  would  have  obeyed  them. 
But  they  did  not  obey  them ;  therefore,  they  did  not  know 
them.  If  the  laws  had  been  in  existence,  these  men  would  have 
known  them.     Hence  the  laws  were  not  in  existence. 

This  argument,  as  employed  by  the  analytic  critics,  contains 
two  incorrect  assumptions.  Many  good  people  remain  ignorant 
of  some  laws  all  their  lives,  and  some  good  people  violate  known 
laws  all  their  lives.  It  is  very  unsafe  to  infer  that  because  good 
people  do  certain  things,  therefore  these  things  are  lawful. 
Prevalent  violations  of  a  law  do  not  prove  its  non-existence. 
Paul  says,  '*  Where  no  law  is,  there  is  no  transgression."  But  it 
does  not  follow  that  where  there  is  transgression  there  is  no  law. 
In  order,  then,  to  determine  whether  the  practices  of  the  Israelites 
at  any  time  prove  their  ignorance  of  Pentateuchal  laws,  and 
whether  this  ignorance,  if  proved,  would  further  prove  the  non- 
existence of  these  laws,  we  must  know  thoroughly  the  facts  in 
the  case. 

Many  of  the  critics,  in  treating  of  these  matters,  commit  the 

229 


230  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

same  error  which  so  often  appears  in  their  argumentation  eise- 
where — that  of  taking  silence  for  denial,  and  inferring  that  a 
law  was  not  observed  because  in  the  history  of  particular  times 
nothing  is  said  about  it.  They  do  worse  even  than  this  in  their 
presentation  of  the  historical  argument.  They  set  aside  the 
biblical  history  as  untrue  and  set  up  a  history  of  their  own 
invention.  When  they  speak  of  the  biblical  history,  they  mean 
the  history  as  they  think  it  ought  to  be,  and  as  they  manufac- 
ture it  to  support  their  theories.  We  intend  to  verify  these 
charges  as  we  proceed. 

I.     We  begin  with  the  unity  of  worship. 

The  fact  that  the  Pentateuchal  laws  required  the  Israelites  to 
offer  sacrifices  in  one  chosen  place  has  already  been  mentioned.  ^ 
A  passage  in  Exodus  has  been  construed  as  favoring  a  plurality 
of  places  of  worship.^  The  traditionalists,  however,  maintain 
that  the  expression,  "  in  all  places  where  I  record  my  name,"  in 
this  passage  does  not  mean  several  places  at  the  same  time,  but 
many  places  in  succession,  the  places  at  which  the  altar  and  the 
tabernacle  were  from  time  to  time  set  up ;  and  they  point,  in 
support  of  this  construction,  to  the  fact  that  but  one  altar  is 
mentioned.  How  could  there  be  more  than  one  place  of  sacrifice, 
when  there  was  but  one  altar  ? 

It  is  maintained,  however,  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  there  were 
many  altars  and  many  places  of  worship ;  that  pious  and  law- 
abiding  Israelites  offered  sacrifice  on  private  altars ;  and  that  up 
to  the  later  times  of  the  monarchy  there  could  have  been  no  law 
requiring  unity  of  worship,  as  otherwise  the  ignorance  and  dis- 
regard of  it  would  be  incredible.  The  analysts  reason  as  fol- 
lows :  If  there  was  a  law  requiring  unity  of  worship,  it  was 
almost  continually  disobeyed  by  pious  and  law-abiding  Israel- 
ites ;  but  such  disobedience  is  incredible  ;  therefore,  there  was  no 
such  law  down  to  the  time  of  Josiah.  The  objectors  in  this  case 
appeal  to  the  history,  that  is,  in  spots.  They  take  the  history  so 
far  as  it  presents  facts  that  seem  favorable  to  their  views.  The 
rest  of  the  history  they  either  ignore  or  decry  as  untrustworthy. 

Let  us  ascertain,  then,  what  the  facts  are  as  brought  to  view 
in  the  history. 

(i)  The  history  shows  that  for  about  forty  years  at  least, 
during  the  time  of  Moses,  the  law  requiring  unity  of  worship 
was  fully  obeyed.    During  the  wandering  in  the  wilderness  there 

1  See  Part  III.,  ch.  ix.  =  ex.  20  :  24. 


THE  HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT  23 1 

was  but  one  altar,  one  tabernacle,  and  one  central  place  of  wor- 
ship. Neither  the  pillar  of  cloud  by  day,  nor  the  pillar  of  fire 
by  night,  ever  divided  itself.  This  symbol  of  God's  presence 
moved  on  from  time  to  time,  and  from  place  to  place,  and  wher- 
ever it  rested,  there  the  tabernacle  and  the  altar  were  erected, 
and  the  tribes  of  God  encamped  around  them.  Thither  Moses, 
and  Aaron,  and  the  godly  Israelites  came  to  sacrifice  and  to 
worship.  During  the  entire  wandering  in  the  desert,  the  whole 
time  covered  by  the  historical  parts  of  the  last  four  books  of 
the  Pentateuch,  there  is  not  a  single  instance  of  sacrifice  being 
offered  elsewhere  than  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation.  The  Israelites  repeatedly  rebelled  in  the  desert. 
Some  of  the  laws  were,  in  a  certain  sense,  held  in  abeyance. 
Circumcision  was  neglected  or  withheld  for  forty  years.  ^  The 
Passover  during  that  time  was  probably  not  observed,  at  least 
generally,  as  circumcision  was  a  prerequisite  for  the  perform- 
ance of  that  duty ;  ^  but  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence 
that  there  was,  before  the  death  of  Moses,  a  single  infraction 
of  the  law  requiring  all  sacrifices  to  be  offered  at  one  divinely- 
chosen  place. 

( 2 )  There  is  historical  evidence  that  this  law  was  operative 
after  the  death  of  Moses,  and  during  the  lifetime  of  Joshua. 

After  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan  and  the  defeat  at  Ai,  Joshua 
and  the  elders  of  Israel  prostrated  themselves  before  the  ark  of 
the  Lord.  3  The  ark,  of  course,  was  in  the  tabernacle.  After  the 
destruction  of  Ai,  Joshua  built  an  altar  to  the  Lord  on  Mount 
Ebal,  "as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses."  On 
the  stones  of  this  altar  a  copy  of  the  law  of  Moses  was  written. 
On  this  altar  they  sacrificed  burnt-offerings  and  peace-offer- 
ings. Here  all  Israel,  and  their  officers,  elders,  and  judges, 
surrounded  the  ark,  and,  in  the  presence  of  the  priests  the 
Levites,  listened  to  the  reading  of  all  the  words  of  the  law.^ 
Here,  then,  for  the  present  was  the  central  place  of  worship. 

The  account  given  of  the  Gibeonites  plainly  implies  that  there 
was  but  one  altar  and  one  place  of  assembling  for  worship. 
Joshua  declared  to  them,  "There shall  none  of  you  be  freed  from 
being  bondmen,  and  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  for 
the  house  of  my  God."  It  is  accordingl}'  declared  that  Joshua 
' '  made  them  that  day  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  for 
the  congregation,  and  for  the  altar  of  the  Lord."^    Here  we  have 

» Josh.  5  :  2-9.     '  Josh.  5  :  10.     ^  josh.  7  :  C.     *  Josh.  8  :  31-35.     ^  josh.  9  :  23,  27. 


232  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OI^   THE    PENTATEUCH 

one  house  of  God  and  one  altar  of  God  spoken  of,  which  cer- 
tainly implies  one  place  of  worship  for  all  IvSrael. 

After  the  conquest,  the  whole  congregation  of  Israel  assembled 
at  Shiloh  and  set  up  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  ( or  tent 
of  meeting).  Shiloh  was  thus  recognized  as  the  place  of  God's 
presence  and  the  place  of  sacrifice  and  worship.  ^  Men  went  to 
Shiloh  to  appear  before  the  Lord.^ 

We  do,  indeed,  read  of  the  erection  of  a  second  altar  in  the  time 
of  Joshua.  The  two  and  a  half  tribes  beyond  Jordan  built  an 
altar,  "a  great  altar  to  see  to."  But  this  alarmed  their  brethren 
in  western  Canaan,  who  assembled  for  war,  and  sent  messengers 
to  remonstrate  with  the  supposed  transgressors.  The  builders 
of  this  second  altar  informed  the  messengers  that  it  was  in- 
tended, not  for  sacrifice  or  worship,  but  merely  as  a  witness  that 
the  inhabitants  of  eastern  Canaan  had  a  right  to  worship  the 
God  of  Israel.  The  answer  was  satisfactory. ^  The  negotiations 
clearly  reveal  the  fact  that  the  law  of  the  unity  of  worship  was 
fully  recognized  by  both  parties.*  The  remonstrants  said, 
"Notwithstanding,  if  the  land  of  your  possession  be  unclean, 
then  pass  ye  over  unto  the  land  of  the  possession  of  the  Lord, 
wherein  the  lyord's  tabernacle  dwelleth,  and  take  possession 
among  us  ;  but  rebel  not  against  the  Lord,  nor  rebel  against  us, 
in  building  you  an  altar  besides  the  altar  of  the  Lord  our  God." 
The  builders  of  the  second  altar  replied,  "God  forbid  that  we 
should  rebel  against  the  Lord,  and  turn  this  day  from  following 
the  Lord,  to  build  an  altar  for  burnt-offerings,  for  meat-offerings, 
or  for  sacrifices,  besides  the  altar  of  the  Lord  our  God  that  is 
before  his  tabernacle."^  These  facts  make  it  evident  that  in 
Joshua's  time  the  Israelites  fully  recognized  the  unlawfulness 
and  sinfulness  of  offering  sacrifices  elsewhere  than  at  the  one 
tabernacle  and  on  the  one  altar  of  the  Lord. 

It  is  thus  shown  that  according  to  the  history  the  Israelites 
understood  and  obeyed  this  law  for  about  forty  years  during  the 
time  of  Moses,  and  for  about  a  quarter  of  a  century  during 
the  leadership  of  Joshua.  So  far,  the  testimony  of  the  history 
clearly  points  to  the  existence  of  the  law  of  centralized  worship  ; 
and  we  might  here  rest  our  case.  For  since  the  law  existed  as  a 
matter  of  history  in  the  times  of  Moses  and  Joshua,  it  must 
have  existed  in  subsequent  times,  however  much  it  may  have 

>  Josh.  18  :  1.  2  Josh.  18  :  6,  8, 10  ;  19  :  51.  »  Josh.  22  :  9-34. 

*  See  p.  207.  "  Josh.  22 :  19,  29. 


THE   HISTORICAIv  ARGUMENT  233 

been  ignored  and  disobeyed,  unless,  indeed,  it  was  repealed. 
But  of  this  there  is  no  evidence ;  and,  besides,  repeal  would  be 
the  very  reverse  of  the  analytic  hypothesis  ;  it  would  be  evolu- 
tion going  backwards. 

(3)  Antecedently,  we  should  expect  to  find  this  law,  to  some 
extent,  ignored  and  disobeyed  in  the  time  of  the  judges  ;  for 
during  this  time  religion  and  morality  were  often  at  a  low 
ebb,  and  anarchy  and  lawlessness  prevailed.  The  people  were 
obedient  as  long  as  Joshua  lived,  and  for  a  short  time  after  his 
death.  "And  Israel  served  the  Lord  all  the  days  of  Joshua,  and 
all  the  days  of  the  elders  that  overlived  Joshua."^  But  declen- 
sion and  idolatry  had  partially  begun  even  during  the  last  days 
of  Joshua.  He  referred  to  this  fact  in  his  final  address :  '  *  Put 
away  the  gods  which  your  fathers  served  on  the  other  side  of 
the  flood,  and  in  Egypt."  And  again:  "Now  therefore  put 
away  .  .  .  the  strange  gods  which  are  among  you."^  After  his 
death  apostasy  soon  set  in.  "And  also  all  that  generation  were 
gathered  unto  their  fathers.  And  there  arose  another  generation 
after  them,  which  knew  not  the  Lord,  nor  yet  the  works  which 
he  had  done  for  Israel.  And  the  children  of  Israel  did  evil  in 
the  sight  of  the  Lord,  and  served  Baalim  :  and  they  forsook  the 
Lord  God  of  their  fathers,  which  brought  them  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  and  followed  other  gods,  of  the  gods  of  the  people 
that  were  round  about  them,  and  bowed  themselves  unto  them."* 
The  Israelites  * '  knew  not  the  Lord ' '  at  this  time.  Of  course  they 
knew  not  his  laws.  The  record  further  relates  that  the  Lord  raised 
up  judges,  and  that  the  people  "would  not  hearken  unto  their 
judges,  but  they  went  a  whoring  after  other  gods";  and  that, 
though  "the  Lord  was  with  the  judge,"  yet,  when  the  judge 
was  dead,  "they  returned,  and  corrupted  themselves  more  than 
their  fathers,  in  following  other  gods  to  serve  them,  and  to  bow 
down  unto  them ;  they  ceased  not  from  their  own  doings,  nor 
from  their  stubborn  way."*  In  such  times  of  apostasy,  rebel- 
lion, and  disobedience,  of  course  the  law  requiring  sacrifices  to 
be  offered  to  the  God  of  Israel  at  his  one  tabernacle  and  one 
altar  was  forgotten  or  disregarded. 

Our  critics  ignore  these  facts.  They  ignore  also  the  fact  that 
the  Israelites  were  in  a  chronic  state  of  alienation  and  rebellion 
during  almOvSt  their  entire  history  from  the  exodus  to  the  exile 
— that  the  commonwealth  established  by  the  Lord  and   jNIoses 

>  Josh.  24  :  31.  "  Josh.  24  :  14,  23.  =»  Judg.  2  :  10-12.  *  Judg.  2  :  16-19. 


234  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

was  a  failure  almost  from  the  beginning  and  was  displaced  by 
the  monarchy  ;  that  the  chosen  people  were  a  failure,  proving  to 
be  stiff-necked  and  rebellious,  and  had  to  be  cast  off,  scattered, 
and  riddled,  in  order  that,  as  after  the  exile,  a  new  start  might 
be  made  with  the  better  and  chosen  few  ;  and  that  previous  to 
this  second  experiment  many  of  the  laws  were  inoperative 
through  the  weakness  and  perverseness  of  the  people  and  their 
rulers.  We  speak  of  failure,  but  really  it  was  neither  of  God, 
nor  of  his  law.  It  was  through  no  failure  of  God  or  Christian- 
ity that  the  only  copy  of  the  Bible  to  which  Luther  had  access 
was  locked  up  and  chained  in  a  convent.  It  was  through  no 
failure  of  God  and  Christianity  that  the  Christians  engaged  in 
the  business  of  man-stealing  and  the  slave  trade.  It  is  through 
no  fault  of  the  ten  commandments  that  "every  mere  man  doth 
daily  break  them  in  thought,  word,  and  deed."  The  golden 
rule  of  Christ  is  no  failure,  though  everybody  fails  to  obey  it. 
These  failures  and  all  this  disobedience  do  not  prove  the  moral 
law  of  God  either  to  be  entirely  unknown,  or  to  be  an  absolute 
nullity.  Nor  does  disobedience  to  any  particular  law  among  the 
Israelites,  whether  that  disobedience  was  conscious  or  uncon- 
scious, whether  through  ignorance  or  perverseness,  prove  that 
the  law  was  either  unknown  or  non-existent. 

Antecedently,  then,  we  would  expect  the  law  in  regard  to  the 
centralization  of  worship  to  be  ignored  and  disobeyed,  like  many 
other  laws  in  the  time  of  the  judges,  a  time  in  which  idolatry, 
violence,  and  other  forms  of  sin  and  immorality  frequentl}^  pre- 
vailed, and  in  which  frequently  there  was  no  central  or  settled 
government  to  repress  lawlessness  and  transgression  —  a  state  of 
things  brought  to  view  in  the  history  by  the  repeated  use  of  the 
formula,  "In  thOvSe  days  there  was  no  king  in  Israel. "^  It  is 
evident  that  this  state  existed  only  at  particular  times  during 
the  period  of  the  judges. 

After  all,  there  is  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  law  requiring 
unity  of  worship  was  not  unknown,  nor  altogether  a  dead  letter, 
during  the  period  of  the  judges,  notwithstanding  the  degeneracy 
and  perverseness  of  the  times.  Shiloh  was  recognized  still  as 
the  place  of  God's  presence  and  worship.  It  is  expressly 
declared  that  "the  house  of  God  was  in  Shiloh. "2  This,  of 
course,  refers  to  the  tabernacle  as  God's  dwelling-place,  which 
had  been  set  up  in  Shiloh,  in  the  time  of  Joshua.^     Here  was  an 

iJudg.  17:6;  18:  1;  19:  1;  21:  25.  ^ j^dg.  18  :  31.  ^josh.  18:1. 


THE   HlSTORICAIv  ARGUMENT  235 

annual  feast  of  the  lyord — whether  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread 
or  of  tabernacles  matters  not,  so  far  as  the  present  argument  is 
concerned.  ^  Let  it  be  observed  that  but  one  house  of  the  Lord 
is  mentioned,  not  the  houses,  nor  a  house,  but  the  house  of  the 
Lord.  While  Micah's  graven  image  was  worshiped  by  the  Dan- 
ites,  the  house  of  God  was  in  Shiloh.  Though  they  had  a 
descendant  of  Moses  for  their  priest,  their  place  of  worship  was 
neither  the  house  nor  a  house  of  God.^  The  Levite  whose  wife's 
shocking  death  led  to  a  destructive  civil  war,  said  in  Gibeah, 
**I  am  now  going  to  the  house  of  the  Lord."^  The  reference 
was  doubtless  to  the  tabernacle  at  Shiloh,  which  lay  in  the 
direction  in  which  he  was  going.*  At  this  time  the  Israelites 
went  repeatedly  to  the  house  of  God  (or  to  Bethel,  as  in  the 
Revised  Version)  to  ask  counsel  in  regard  to  the  war  against 
Benjamin.^  They  went  for  divine  counsel  to  the  place  (whether 
Bethel  or  Shiloh)  where  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  God  was,  and 
where  Phinehas,  a  descendant  of  Aaron,  was  the  ministering 
priest.^  The  building  of  an  altar  on  the  morrow  after  the 
defeat  of  the  Benjamites  seems  to  indicate  that  the  tabernacle 
and  the  ark  had  been  brought  from  Shiloh  to  be  near  the  battle- 
field (perhaps  to  Bethel),  and  that  hence  an  altar  was  needed. 

( 4)  Shiloh  appears  still  as  the  central  place  of  worship  in  the 
time  of  Samuel,  Samuel's  pious  father  and  mother  went  ' '  yearly 
to  worship  and  sacrifice  unto  the  Lord  of  hosts"  in  Shiloh. 
Here  were  the  tabernacle,  and  the  ark  of  God,  and  an  Aaronic 
priesthood,  as  in  the  time  of  Joshua.  The  people  of  Israel  came 
here  to  sacrifice  and  worship.  A  law  of  sacrifice  was  recognized, 
which  the  sons  of  Eli,  the  high  priest,  violated.  The  right  of 
the  priests  to  certain  parts  of  the  sacrifice  was  admitted.  The 
wicked  sons  of  Eli  gave  offense  to  the  pious  worshipers  by 
unlawful  proceedings  in  taking  their  lawful  perquisites.'  It 
thus  appears  that  Shiloh  continued  to  be  the  home  of  the  taber- 
nacle, and  the  ark,  and  the  altar,  and  the  place  of  sacrifice 
and  worship  for  all  Israel,  from  Joshua  to  Samuel.  We  do 
not  say  that  the  tabernacle  and  the  ark  were  never  absent  during 
all  this  time  from  Shiloh.  The  tabernacle,  with  its  sacred  furni- 
ture, was  removed  from  place  to  place  in  the  wilderness,  and  it 
may  not  have  been  entirely  stationary  after  the  conquest.  We 
think,  indeed,  that  it  was   not.      But  the  history  shows  that 

'  Judg.  21 :  19.  2  Judg.  18  :  31.  ^  Judg.  19 :  18.  *  Judg.  19 :  1. 

6  J  udg.  20  :  18.  23,  26.      •  J  udg.  20 :  27,  28.      ^  1.  Sam.  1 : 1-3  ;  2 :  12-17,  22-26 :  3  :  3. 


236  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

Shiloh  became  the  abiding-place  of  the  tabernacle  and  the  ark, 
and  the  place  of  sacrifice  and  worship,  soon  after  the  death  of 
Moses,  and  continued  such  until,  in  the  time  of  Samuel,  the 
Lord  forsook  the  place,  and  laid  it  waste  because  of  the  wicked- 
ness of  Eli's  house  and  of  the  people  of  Israel.^  Thus  Shiloh, 
chosen  to  be  the  place  for  recording  God's  name  at  the  first,  con- 
tinued century  after  century  to  be  honored  as  the  place  of  his 
presence  and  the  place  of  sacrifice  and  worship.  Such  is  the 
testimony  of  the  history — the  history  as  presented  in  the  Bible, 
and  not  mutilated  and  mangled  to  suit  the  theories  of  the  ana- 
lystSo  These  facts  alone  are  sufficient  to  show  that  there  was  a 
restriction  of  sacrifices  in  general  to  the  one  tabernacle  and  one 
altar.  There  were  exceptions,  doubtless,  but  these  serve  to  show 
that  the  law  was  generally  obeyed. 

(5)  Moses  erected  an  altar  immediately  after  the  defeat  of  the 
Amalekites.  But  this  was  a  memorial  altar — not  for  sacrifice. 
No  sacrifice  was  offered  upon  it.^  So,  too,  as  we  have  shown, 
the  altar  erected  by  the  two  and  a  half  tribes  east  of  the  Jordan 
was  merely  monumental  in  design,  and  was  not  intended  for  sac- 
rifice. All  parties  united  in  declaring  the  erection  of  an  altar 
for  sacrifice  besides  the  altar  before  the  tabernacle  to  be  rebellion 
against  God  and  a  grievous  sin.  The  account  of  these  excep- 
tional altars  confirms  the  existence  of  the  law  against  a  plurality 
of  altars  for  sacrifice  and  worship. 

Another  exceptional  case  is  presented,  at  least  apparently,  in 
the  fact  that  the  children  of  Israel  sacrificed  to  the  Lord  in 
Bochim.3  We  speak  of  this  as  an  apparent  exception  ;  for  the 
tabernacle  and  the  ark  may  have  been  brought  to  Bochim,  and 
the  place  may  thus  have  become,  for  the  time,  the  central  place 
of  worship,  or  Bochim  may  have  been  Shiloh.  But  an  angel  of 
the  Lord  appeared  at  Bochim,  and  this  angel,  as  his  words  show, 
was  Jehovah  himself.  Thus  the  place,  at  least  temporarily,  came 
within  the  law.  God  had  chosen  it  for  the  time  to  put  his  name 
there ;^  hence,  it  became  the  duty  of  the  Israelites  to  erect  an 
altar  there  (if  the  tabernacle  and  altar  were  not  there  already), 
and  to  offer  sacrifices  upon  it.  But  Jehovah's  appearing  at 
Bochim,  if  it  was  not  Shiloh,  was  temporary.  He  put  or  re- 
corded his  name  there  but  once,  and  then  withdrew.  Accord- 
ingly, the  history  records  but  the  one  sacrifice  at  Bochim,  and 

»  Ps.  78  :  60  ;  Jer.  7  :  12,  14, 15  ;  26 :  6,  9.  »  Ex.  17 :  15, 16. 

a  Judg.  2 :  1-5.  *  Dent.  12 :  5. 


THE   HISTORICAI,  ARGUMENT  22i^ 

while  sacrificing  there  the  Israelites,  so  far  as  the  nistory  relates, 
sacrificed  nowhere  else.  This,  then,  is  only  an  apparent  excep- 
tion, and  does  not  indicate  a  plurality  of  altars. 

Another  apparently  exceptional  case  is  found  in  the  present 
offered  b}^  Gideon  to  the  angel  of  the  Lord.  But  so  far  as  Gideon 
was  concerned  this  present  was  not  a  sacrifice  at  all.  It  con- 
sisted of  the  flesh  of  a  kid,  unleavened  cakes,  and  a  pot  of  broth, 
which  were  intended  as  food  for  the  man  whom  Gideon  thought 
the  angel  to  be.  The  angel  burned  these  articles  of  food  and 
disappeared.  It  appears  that  in  this  case  the  angel  was  Jeho- 
vah.^ But,  at  all  events,  Gideon  did  not  offer  sacrifice  on  this 
occasion.  However,  immediately  after  this  Gideon  built  an  altar 
in  Ophrah  to  the  Lord.  In  regard  to  this  altar  several  things 
are  to  be  observed.  ( i )  There  is  no  account  of  anj'^  sacrifice 
being  offered  upon  it.  ( 2 )  It  appears  to  have  been  a  memorial 
altar,  like  to  the  one  erected  by  Moses  to  commemorate  the  vic- 
tory over  the  Amalekites,  ^  and  the  one  erected  by  the  two  and 
a  half  tribes  be3'ond  Jordan. ^  (3)  The  altar  for  sacrifice  was 
the  one  built  at  God's  command  on  the  top  of  the  rock  or 
vStronghold.^ 

The  offering  of  sacrifice  on  this  second  altar  was  not  in  viola- 
tion of  the  law  which  forbade  separate  and  private  altars  and 
sacrifices,  for  the  Lord  had  made  himself  known  at  this  place — 
had  "recorded  his  name"  there.  So,  too,  when  Manoah  offered 
his  sacrifice  upon  a  rock,  the  Lord  was  visibl}-  present ;  for  though 
the  heavenly  visitant  is  called  an  angel  of  the  Lord,  3'et  when  he 
ascended  in  the  flame  of  the  sacrifice  Manoah  recognized  him  as 
God.  God  appeared  to  Manoah  no  more,  and  he  offered  not  an- 
other sacrifice.^  There  are,  indeed,  some  other  cases  of  irregular 
sacrifices  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  but  thej^  are  con- 
demned as  unlawful  and  idolatrous.  During  fort}^  years  spent  in 
the  desert,  and  the  quarter  of  a  century  of  Joshua's  leadership, 
and  the  whole  time  of  the  judges,  four  hundred  3-ears  or  more, 
there  are  recorded  only  three  instances  of  lawful  and  acceptable 
sacrifice  offered  elsewhere  than  at  the  central  place  of  worship  ; 
and  at  all  these  three  places,  Bochim,  Ophrah,  and  INIanoah's 
field,  where  the  irregular  sacrifice  was  offered,  the  Lord  himself 
was  present,  "  recording  his  name"  there. 

In  the  time  of  Samuel  the  circumstances  were  peculiar.     The 

1  Judg.  6 :  11-23.  «  Ex.  17  :  15, 16.  '  Josh.  22  :  21-29. 

*  Judg.  6 :  25-32.  "  Judg.  13 : 1-23. 


238  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

priesthood  was  corrupt ;  the  people  were  in  a  state  of  rebellion 
and  alienation.  For  the  prevalent  wickedness  the  Lord  slew 
the  priests,  delivered  the  ark  and  the  people  into  the  hands  of 
the  Philistines,  forsook  the  tabernacle,  and  laid  Shiloh  waste. 
The  ark  was  brought  back  to  Israel,  but  it  was  now  an  object  of 
fear,  and  it  was  placed  in  the  house  of  Abinadab,  where  it 
remained  twenty  years.  The  ark  and  the  tabernacle  were  sepa- 
rated, and  the  central  altar  seems  to  have  gone  out  of  sight,  if 
not  out  of  mind.  Israel  was  in  a  state  of  apostasy.  Samuel 
called  on  the  people  to  repent.  "  Put  away  [said  he]  the  strange 
gods  and  Ashtaroth  from  among  you,  and  prepare  your  hearts 
unto  the  lyord."^  His  exhortations  had  temporary  effect,  but 
the  reformation  was  not  effectual,  and  the  alienation  between 
God  and  Israel  continued,  the  ark  and  the  tabernacle  remained 
apart,  and  the  services  of  the  sanctuary  were  not  restored.  There 
was  altogether  an  anomalous  state  of  things  when  the  priests 
had  been  slain  or  set  aside  for  their  wickedness,  and  the  sanc- 
tuary was  broken  up  and  suspended.  There  was  no  recognized 
place  of  central  worship,  because  there  was  no  place  where  God 
"recorded  his  name"  by  special  manifestation  of  his  presence. 
In  these  circumstances  Samuel  and  other  pious  Israelites  doubt- 
less did  many  things  which  they  would  not  have  done,  had  the 
regular  services  of  the  sanctuary  not  been  interrupted. 

The  desire  of  David  to  have  the  ark  in  Jerusalem,  his  building 
a  tabernacle  for  it,  the  account  of  the  removal  of  it  from  the 
house  of  Abinadab,  and  David's  offering  burnt-offerings  and 
peace-offerings  before  the  Lord  at  the  time  of  his  placing  it  in 
the  tabernacle,  all  indicate  that  the  neglect  of  the  ark  for  twenty 
years  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  former  custom. 
The  death  of  Uzzah,  in  consequence  of  his  having  touched  the 
ark  of  God,  points  to  a  law  that  must  be  rigidly  observed,  and 
even  the  unconscious  violation  of  which  must  be  punished.  ^ 
"When  David  fled  from  Jerusalem  because  of  Absalom,  Zadok  and 
the  Levites  accompanied  him,  "bearing  the  ark  of  the  covenant 
of  God."  Though  David  directed  them  to  return  with  it  to 
Jerusalem,  the  facts  show  that  where  the  ark  was,  God's  habita- 
tion was.  2  The  hallowed  bread  at  Nob  suggests  that  the  taber- 
nacle and  its  service  had  been  established  at  that  place,  only  to 
be  abolished  by  King  Saul's  slaughter  of  the  priests  and  the 
destruction  of  the  city.* 

il.!5am.7:3.    » II.  Sam.  6 :  1-18.    '  II.  Sam.  15 :  24-29.    *  I.  Sam.  21 :  1-6 ;  22 :  9-19. 


the;   HISTORICAIy  ARGUMENT  239 

From  this  time  on  to  the  erection  of  the  temple  on  the  spot 
where  the  angel  of  the  Ivord  had  stood  in  the  time  of  David,  God 
had  no  chosen  place  in  Israel.  Indeed,  from  the  time  that  God 
forsook  Shiloh  and  laid  it  waste,  because  of  the  sins  of  Israel, 
until  the  building  of  the  temple,  there  was  no  place  in  all  the 
land  which  could  be  regarded  by  the  intelligent  and  pious  Jews 
as  possessing  the  grand  characteristic  of  the  central  place  of 
worship,  according  to  the  Pentateuchal  formula,  "The  place 
which  the  Lord  your  God  shall  choose  out  of  all  your  tribes  to 
put  his  name  there.  "^ 

In  this  anomalous  state  of  things,  resulting  from  the  apostasy 
of  the  chosen  people  and  God's  withdrawal  from  them  as  a  com- 
munity, the  law  of  the  unity  of  worship  was  necessarily  held  in 
abeyance,  like  circumcision  and  the  Passover  in  the  wilderness, 
while  God  was  w^aiting  until  the  rebellious  generation  should 
pass  away.  The  appeal  of  the  analysts  to  the  history  of  these 
anomalous  times  and  to  the  examples  of  irregular  sacrifices 
which  it  furnishes,  in  order  to  prove  that  as  yet  there  was  no 
legal  requirement  for  the  centralization  of  worship,  involves  a 
discreditable  ignoring  of  historical  facts  and  an  audacious  disre- 
gard of  logical  consistency.  Wellhausen  says,  "Desgleichen 
wird  durch  I.  Reg.  3  :  2  die  Vorstellung  eines  vorsalomonischen 
Centralheiligtums  ausgeschlossen  "  ^  ("The  representation  of  a 
pre-Solomonic  central  sanctuary  is  precluded  by  I.  Kings  3  :  2"). 

The  passage  which  Wellhausen  thus  imperiously  claims  settles 
the  question  in  regard  to  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  tabernacle 
is  as  follows  :  ' '  Only  the  people  sacrificed  in  high  places,  be- 
cause there  was  no  house  built  unto  the  name  of  the  Lord,  until 
those  days."  This  is  a  favorite  text  with  our  critic  ;  he  refers  to 
it  again  and  again.  But  his  reliance  on  it  is,  on  his  part,  a  self- 
contradiction  ;  for  he  denounces  the  Book  of  Kings  as  untrust- 
worthy and  false  in  its  every  statement  that  contravenes  his 
views.  We  refer,  as  a  specimen,  to  his  declaration  thac  "the 
thirteenth  chapter  of  I.  Kings  is  one  of  the  coarsest  examples  of 
historical  worthlessness,  comparable  with  Judges  19-21,  or  I. 
Samuel  7  sqq.,  or  occupying  a  still  lower  grade.  "^  But  now, 
when  he  finds  a  passage  that  seems  helpful  to  his  argument,  he 
quotes  it  as  trustworthy  and  conclusive. 

But  the  critic  injects  into  the  passage  his  notion  that  there 
never  was  a  Mosaic  tabernacle  or  tabernacle  service.     He  ignores 

1  Deut.  12:5.  »  Prolegomena,  p.  292.  » idem,  p.  297. 


240  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

the  fact  that  it  refers  to  the  time  in  which  the  Israelites  were  in 
an  abnormal  state.  From  the  time  that  God  forsook  and  de- 
stroyed Shiloh  on  account  of  prevailing  wickedness,  until  the 
building  of  the  temple,  there  was  no  centralized  worship,  and 
could  be  none,  because  no  place  was  divinely  chosen  for  it ;  but 
by  the  building  of  the  temple  in  the  place  chosen  of  God,  and 
by  the  bringing  of  the  ark,  and  the  tabernacle,  and  the  holy 
vessels  into  it,  ^  the  central  worship  was  restored  as  in  the  days 
of  Moses,  Joshua,  and  the  judges. 

The  analytic  critics,  some  of  them  at  least,  rely  confidently  on 
II.  Samuel  8:  18,  last  clause,  "David's  sons  were  chief  rulers," 
as  proving  that  the  law  of  the  Levitical  priesthood  was  not  in 
force  in  David's  time.  The  word  in  the  original  {cohenim)  here 
rendered  " chief  rulers "  or  "princes,"  generally  means /»r/(?5/j. 
If  David's  sons  were  priests,  the  Levitical  law  must  have  been 
disregarded,  or  was  not  in  force.  The  argument  depends  on  the 
translation  of  the  word  cohenim.  May  it  be  translated  here 
"chief  rulers"  or  "princes,"  as  in  our  Authorized  Version? 
Wellhausen,  of  course,  is  quite  certain  that  the  passage  means 
that  the  sons  of  David  were  literal  priests,  and  is  more  than 
willing  to  accept  the  statement  on  the  authority  of  an  author 
whose  historical  veracity  he  repeatedly  impugns.  His  declara- 
tion is,  "So  durfen  diese  Worte  nicht  dem  Pentateuch  zu  liebe 
anders  gedreht  werden  als  wie  sie  lauten"  ^  ("These  words  must 
not,  out  of  love  for  the  Pentateuch,  be  twisted  out  of  their  proper 
meaning").  Wellhausen's  faithful  follower,  Professor  W.  R. 
Smith,  affirms  that  "the  Hebrew  word  means  priests,  and  can 
mean  nothing  else."^ 

Notwithstanding  the  dogmatical  assumption  of  these  critics, 
there  is  something  to  be  said  on  the  other  side. 

(^)  The  author  of  the  Book  of  Kings  includes  priests  {cohen- 
im') among  the  princes  and  officers  of  Solomon.  His  words  are, 
"And  these  were  the  princes  which  he  had,"  and  among  these 
he  classes  Zadok  and  Abiathar.*  Aside  from  the  question  of 
divine  inspiration  and  also  the  question  of  historical  accuracy, 
the  author  of  Kings  undoubtedly  knew  the  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  word  cohen,  and  here  we  find  him  calling  -^xx^sX.^  princes^ 
classing  them  with  civil  and  military  officers. 

(<?')     The  chronicler  also  evidently  understood  the  word  in  the 

'  I.  Kings  8  :  1-6.  «  Prolegomena,  p.  133. 

^The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jetuish  Church,  p.  265.  *I.  Kings  4  :  2-6. 


THE  HISTORICAI,  ARGUMENT'  24I 

same  way.  He  interprets  this  very  passage  as  follows :  * '  And 
the  sons  of  David  were  chief  about  the  king."^  The  analytic 
leaders  impeach  the  historical  character  of  the  chronicler ;  but 
he  at  least  understood  the  Hebrew  language. 

{c)  The  Septuagint  Version  translates  thus:  "The  sons  of 
David  were  aularchai''  (chamberlains  or  rulers  of  the  palace). 

(<^)  Gesenius  says  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  Hebrew  inter- 
preters that  cohen  signifies  prince  as  well  as  priest,  and  that  the 
Clialdee  translators  have  rendered  it  in  several  places  by  the 
former  word.- 

Other  authorities  might  be  given,  but  we  deem  the  above  a 
sufficient,  and  more  than  a  sufficient,  answer  to  the  unsupported 
assertions  of  our  analytic  critics. 

There  is  no  necessity,  then,  for  understanding  that  King  David 
made  his  sons  priests  in  the  common  acceptation  of  that  word. 

We  conclude  that  the  history,  on  the  whole,  is  favorable  to  the 
centralization  of  worship  in  Mosaic  times.  When  the  history  is 
taken  in  its  entirety  ;  when  it  is  recollected  that  in  the  whole 
Pentateuchal  history  and  during  the  times  of  Moses  and  Joshua 
there  is  not  mentioned  a  single  instance  of  sacrifice  offered  else- 
where than  at  the  altar  before  the  tabernacle ;  when  it  is  further 
recollected  that  all  the  irregular  sacrifices  during  the  time  of  the 
judges  are  condemned  as  idolatrous  and  sinful  except  in  three 
cases,  and  that  in  these  three  cases  the  sacrifices  were  offered 
where  Jehovah  was  visibly  present ;  and  when  it  is  still  further 
recollected  that  the  instances  of  irregular  sacrifice  on  which  the 
critics  mainly  rely  occurred  at  a  time  when  the  sanctuary  services 
had  been  interrupted,  and  there  was  no  place  where  God  was 
"recording  his  name,"  and  hence  there  could  be  no  place  of  cen- 
tral worship, —  when  these  and  all  the  other  facts  are  taken  into 
consideration,  it  must  be  seen  that  the  history,  instead  of  mili- 
tating against  the  traditional  view,  in  reality  confirms  and 
vindicates  it. 

2.  Another  point  at  which  the  analytic  criticism  comes  into 
conflict  with  the  history  is  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  taber- 
nacle. Some  of  the  analysts,  yes,  many  of  them,  admit  its  ex- 
ivStence,  but  they  do  so  at  the  expense  of  logical  consistenc5^ 
The  analytic  hypothesis  of  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuchal  books 
and  of  the  Levitical  code  in  post-Mosaic  times  logically  necessi- 
tates the  rejection  of  the  account  of  the  tabernacle  in  the  wilder- 

'  I.  Chr.  18  :  17.  «  Lexicon,  p.  450. 

16 


242  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OF    THEJ    PENTATEUCH 

ness  as  fictitious  and  false.  With  it  are  connected  the  ark  and 
the  altar.  Where  it  stood  was  the  place  of  sacrifice.  Admit  the 
tabernacle  in  the  wilderness,  and  you  are  forced  to  admit  the  cen- 
tralization of  worship.  The  idea  of  one  tabernacle,  one  holy 
ark,  and  one  altar,  and  many  places  of  worship,  is  absurd. 
Besides,  minute  directions  were  given  to  Moses  concerning  the 
construction  of  the  tabernacle  and  all  its  furniture.  All  the 
instruments,  even  the  tongs  and  the  snuff-dishes,  were  made 
according  to  the  pattern  shown  to  Moses  in  the  mount.  ^  Of 
course,  then,  divine  directions  were  given  to  Moses  concerning 
the  tabernacle  service.  It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  God  would 
give  minute  prescriptions  in  regard  to  the  material  structure  and 
its  furniture,  and  yet  establish  no  code  for  sacrifice  and  worship 
for  priests  and  priestly  service.  It  is  unreasonable  to  suppose 
that  Moses,  even  without  divine  guidance,  would  pursue  such  a 
course.  If  he  constructed  the  tabernacle,  with  its  sacrificial 
altar  and  altar  of  incense,  its  lamps,  and  lights,  and  show-bread, 
and  all  its  instruments  of  service,  then  also  is  he  the  author  of 
its  code  and  ritual.  Those,  therefore,  who  deny  the  Mosaic 
origin  of  the  Levitical  code  and  service  must  deny  the  reality  of 
the  Mosaic  tabernacle.  No  doubt  Voltaire,  with  his  quick 
vision,  recognized  this  truth  when,  anticipating  the  leaders  of 
the  modern  analytic  school,  he  declared  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  to 
be  a  fiction.  Those  leaders,  Reuss,  Graf,  Kuenen,  and  Well- 
hausen,  knew  what  they  were  about  when,  in  rounding  out  and 
completing  the  analytic  system,  they  took  up  and  carried  out 
Voltaire's  idea  by  maintaining  that  the  tabernacle  in  the  wilder- 
ness is  but  Solomon's  temple  in  miniature  projected,  by  the 
Jewish  imagination,  back  into  the  past. 

Perhaps  there  are  some  analytic  critics  who  repudiate  the 
opinions  of  these  leaders  on  this  subject,  and  accept  the  account 
of  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  as  entirely  true.  We  impeach  neither 
the  truthfulness  nor  the  honest}^  of  such  men,  but  suggest  that 
they  must  and  will  either  recede  or  advance  from  their  present 
position ;  for,  according  to  the  history  as  given  in  Exodus,  Moses, 
in  accordance  with  the  divine  command,  gave  minute  directions 
not  only  in  regard  to  the  construction  of  the  tabernacle,  the 
altar,  and  the  ark,  in  regard  to  the  altar  of  incense,  the  table, 
the  candlestick,  and  oil  for  the  light,  but  also  in  regard  to  the 
consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons,  their  regalia  for  the  taber- 

» Ex.  25 :  9,  40. 


THE   HISTORICAI.  ARGUMENT  243 

nacle, — breastplate,  ephod,  robe,  broidered  coat,  miter,  and 
girdle;  gold,  blue,  purple,  scarlet,  and  fine  linen, — and  in  regard 
to  the  daily  service, — a  bullock  for  a  sin-ofFering  every  day,  two 
lambs  of  the  first  year  day  by  day  continually.  Even  the  very 
day  in  which  the  tabernacle  was  to  be  set  up  and  Aaron  and 
his  sons  were  to  be  consecrated,  was  specified.  And,  according 
to  the  history,  the  tabernacle  and  all  its  vessels  and  furniture 
were  constructed  precisely  as  Moses  directed,  and  were  conse- 
crated on  the  day  appointed.  Aaron  was  set  apart  to  the  office 
of  chief  priest,  with  his  sons  as  assistants,  and  the  daily  service 
of  the  sanctuary  according  to  the  prescribed  ritual  was  inau- 
gurated. All  this  and  much  more  is  related  in  the  history,  and 
related  as  history.'^  Now,  if  all  this  be  true,  we  have  a  Levitical 
priesthood,  Levitical  ritual,  and  I^evitical  code  established  and 
inaugurated  by  Moses  in  the  wilderness.  But  in  case  a  man  will 
not  accept  this  Leviticism  and  ritualism  as  inaugurated  by 
Moses,  he  must  join  the  more  advanced  analytic  critics  in  declar- 
ing the  history  to  be  false.  Nor  is  the  history  thus  set  aside 
confined  to  one  book.  The  Mosaic  tabernacle  figures  largely  in 
Exodus,  I^eviticus,  and  Numbers ;  it  is  mentioned  in  Deuter- 
onomy;  2  it  is  mentioned  also  in  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings, 
and  Chronicles.  Thus  the  analysts  are  under  the  necessity  of 
contradicting  nearly  every  historical  book  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment; and  yet  they  try  to  array  the  biblical  history  against 
traditional  views. 

3.  The  analj^tic  critics  reject  also  the  historical  account  of 
the  Passover.  Reuss  claims  that  it  was  instituted  in  the  time 
of  King  Josiali.^  Graf  maintains  that  it  belongs  to  the  time  of 
the  exile.  ■^  Wellhausen,  of  course,  maintains  its  evolutionary 
and  post-Mosaic  origin,^  This  position  is  taken  in  accordance 
with  the  logical  requirements  of  the  analj^tic  theories.  The 
passover  lamb  was  to  be  killed  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle.  If 
the  Passover  originated  in  Mosaic  times,  then  must  the  taber- 
nacle also  date  back  to  Mosaic  times.  But  priests  and  a  priestly 
ritual  are  connected  with  the  tabernacle.  Hence  the  priestly  rit- 
ual would  be  shown  to  be  Mosaic.  But  this  is  contrary  to  the 
anal3-tic  theories.  Hence  the  analysts,  who  have  thoroughly 
thought  out  their  hypothesis  to  its  necessary  conclusions,  main- 
tain the  post-Mosaic  origin  of  the  Passover.     They  take  this 

1  Ex.  40  :  17-38.  =  Deut.  31  :  14,  15.  ^  L'Histoire  Sainte,  Int.,  pp.  148,  164. 

*Die  Geschichtlichen  Bucher  des  Alien  Testaments,  pp.  84,  72. 
fi  Prolegomena,  p.  94. 


244  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

position,  however,  in  defiance  of  the  history.  They  virtually 
give  the  lie  to  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Exodus,  which  records  the 
origin  and  first  celebration  of  the  Passover  under  Moses  in 
Egypt.  They  disregard  the  references  to  it  in  Leviticus.^  They 
reject  and  trample  under  foot  the  account  of  the  second  observ- 
ance of  it  by  Moses  and  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  as  given 
in  Numbers.  2  They  account  the  record  concerning  it  in  Deuter- 
onomy worthless.  ^  They  in  some  way  get  rid  of  the  account  of 
the  keeping  of  the  Passover  by  the  Israelites  after  crossing  the 
Jordan,  as  given  in  Joshua.*  The  chronicler's  account  of  the 
celebration  of  this  feast  in  the  time  of  King  Hezekiah  gives 
them  but  little  trouble,  since  they  decry  the  historical  veracity 
of  that  writer  even  more  than  that  of  most  of  the  other  sacred 
narrators. 

Our  critics  thus  reject  not  only  the  testimony  of  the  historical 
books,  but  also  that  of  the  authors  who  are  supposed  to  have 
lived  and  written  at  different  times.  According  to  Kautzsch- 
Socin,  the  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Passover  in  Exodus 
12 :  I-20  is  by  P,  who  is  supposed  to  have  lived  and  written  about 
450  B.C.;  the  reference  to  the  Passover  in  Exodus  34:  25,  bj'  J, 
about  800  B.C.;  that  in  Deuteronomy  16:  1-8,  by  D,  600  B.C.; 
that  in  Numbers  28:  16,  17,  by  R,  and  that  in  Numbers  ss  '  3.  by 
P  (R).^  Kautzsch-Socin  mark  Exodus  12:  21-27  (which  refers 
to  the  Passover)  with  an  interrogation  point  (?),  but  Driver^ 
ascribes  the  passage  to  JE,  800  to  750  B.C. 

■  Some  of  these  supposed  authors,  as  J  and  E,  are  claimed  to 
have  lived  and  written  many  years  before  the  time  in  which, 
according  to  our  critics,  the  Passover  became  known.  The 
absurdity  and  self-contradiction  of  ascribing  statements  concern- 
ing the  Passover  to  such  authors,  .and  yet  maintaining  that  that 
institution  had  no  existence  before  the  exile  or  the  time  of 
Josiah,  is  quite  obvious.  How  illogical  it  is  in  these  critics, 
after  setting  aside  as  untrustworthy  the  testimony  of  Exodus, 
Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy,  Joshua,  and  Chronicles ;  of 
D,  E,  J,  P,  and  R,  who,  perhaps,  owe  their  entire  existence  to  the 
critics  who  thus  abuse  them,  then  to  turn  round  and  argue 
that  the  biblical  history  is  opposed  to  the  traditional  belief ! 

4.  Logical  and  consistent  analysts  are  under  the  necessity  of 
referring  the  origin   of  the    Sabbath  to  a  comparatively   late 

» Lev.  23  :  4-8.  «  Num.  9  :  1-14.  =«  Deut.  16 :  1-8.  *  Josh.  5 :  10. 

s  Heilige  Schrift  des  Alien  Testaments. 

•  Introduction  to  the  lAterature  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  25. 


THE   HISTORICAI.  ARGUMENT  245 

period.  According  to  the  analytic  hypothesis  the  reference  to 
the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  in  Genesis  2:2,3  originated  with 
the  supposed  author  P,  450  B.C.,  nearly  a  thousand  years  after 
the  time  of  Moses.  Driver  ascribes  the  reference  to  the  Sabbath 
in  Exodus  16:  22-30  partly  to  J,  900  B.C.,i  but  Kautzsch-Socin 
refer  no  part  of  this  passage  to  J,  but  divide  it  between  P  and 
R.  The  various  references  to  the  Sabbath  elsewhere  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch are  ascribed  to  exilic  or  other  late  authors.  The  twen- 
tieth chapter  of  Exodus  (1-21),  which  contains  the  decalogue, 
gives  trouble  to  the  analysts.  Driver  ascribes  the  passage  to 
E,  750  B.C.,  many  centuries  after  Moses,  but  he  affirms  that 
'  •  the  decalogue  was  of  course  derived  by  E  from  a  preexisting 
source. "2  This  remark  of  Driver's  indicates  a  desire  to  trace 
the  ten  commandments  back  to  Moses.  Kautzsch-Socin  ascribe 
the  passage  to  E  in  brackets,  thus  [E]-"^  Reuss  says  the  passage 
is  "the  result  of  a  compilation  much  later  than  the  time  gener- 
ally assigned  to  it." -^  Wellhausen  denies  the  Mosaic  origin  of 
the  decalogue.  He  even  affirms  that  we  have  two  decalogues 
and  that  we  have  no  real  or  certain  knowledge  as  to  what  the 
stone  tables  placed  in  the  ark  contained.  ^  Kuenen  declares  that 
the  decalogue  has  been  redacted  and  interpolated,  and  that  its 
original  form  is  uncertain  and  its  date  doubtful.  He  refers  it  to 
800  or  700  B.C.^     Graf's  views  are  about  the  same. 

Thus  these  critics  view  the  ten  commandments.  The  fourth, 
of  course,  fares  no  better  at  their  hands  than  any  of  the  others. 
They  nullify  the  divine  authority  for  the  Sabbath,  as  contained 
in  the  decalogue.  Reasoning  as  they  do  about  other  matters, 
they  must  hold  that  the  fourth  commandment  was  ignored  and 
disobeyed  by  the  people  of  God  in  ancient  times.  There  is  no 
reference  either  to  the  law  or  to  its  observance  from  Adam  to 
Moses.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  the  ancient  saints 
of  God,  Adam,  Seth,  Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  and 
Joseph,  and  their  godly  contemporaries,  either  obeyed  the  fourth 
commandment  or  knew  anything  about  it.  The  Sabbath  is  not 
mentioned,  nor  even  alluded  to  (unless  in  the  references  to  the 
seven  days  in  the  account  of  the  flood),'  from  the  creation  to  the 
exodus.  To  use  the  current  style  of  the  analytic  school,  the 
Bible  history  knows  nothing  about  Sabbath  observance  among 
the  people  of  God  from  the  creation  on  down  to  the  giving  of  the 

» Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  28.  *  Idem,  p.  30. 

3  Heilige  Schrift  des  Alten  Testaments.  *  L'Histoire  Sainte,  Int.,  p.  66. 

^Prolegomena,  p.  411.        «  Hezateuch,  p.  244.        ^  (Jen.  7  :  4,  10  ;  8  :  10,  12. 


246  MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP    OP    THE    PENTATEUCH 

manna — a  period  of  more  than  two  thousand  six  hundred  years. 
Then,  again,  the  Bible  history  knows  nothing  about  obedience  to 
the  fourth  commandment  among  the  Israelites  from  Moses  to 
Isaiah ;  and  even  in  Isaiah's  time  Sabbath  desecration  was  a 
prevalent  sin.^  Though  the  Sabbath  is  mentioned  in  the  books 
of  Kings  and  Chronicles,  there  is  not  a  word  about  the  observ- 
ance of  it  as  a  day  of  rest.^ 

Yet  all  this  silence  in  regard  to  the  Sabbath,  silence  lasting 
for  centuries,  and  even  for  thousands  of  years,  and  this  neglect 
of  it,  though  general,  persistent,  and  long-continued,  do  not 
prove  that  the  law  requiring  men  to  rest  one  da}^  in  seven  was 
not  in  force  from  the  earliest  times,  or  was  at  any  period  alto- 
gether unknown.  The  analytic  critic,  in  drawing  such  conclu- 
sion, does  it  in  defiance  of  the  biblical  history.  That  history 
states  that  God  instituted  the  Sabbath  at  man's  creation. ^  That 
history  further  states  that  the  Israelites  had  a  knowledge  of  this 
primitive  institution  and  observed  it  when  they  came  out  of 
Egypt  and  before  the  giving  of  the  decalogue  at  Sinai.*  Still 
further,  the  history  states  that  at  the  giving  of  the  law  Jehovah 
issued  no  new  command  in  regard  to  the  Sabbath,  but  reminded 
the  Israelites  of  the  commandment  already  given,  "Remember 
the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy."  And  still  further,  the  history 
states  that  Moses  incorporated  this  command  among  the  civil 
laws  of  his  people.  The  only  way  the  analytic  critics  can,  with 
any  show  of  consivStency  or  reason,  maintain  the  non-primitive 
and  non-Mosaic  character  of  the  fourth  commandment  and  of 
the  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  is  to  impeach  and  set  aside  the 
biblical  history.  This  is  what  the  most  logical  and  boldest  of 
the  analysts  have  done. 

5.  The  argument  from  silence  and  neglect  has  been  applied  to 
the  institution  of  the  Day  of  Atonement.  This  institution  is  re- 
ferred to  in  each  of  the  three  middle  books,  but  is  set  forth  most 
particularly  in  Leviticus.  ^  But  what  must  be  admitted  as  strange 
and  scarcely  accountable  is,  that  outside  of  the  Pentateuch  there 
is  no  reference  to  the  Day  of  Atonement  in  the  Old  Testament — 
at  least  no  certain  reference.  But  in  this  case  the  argument  from 
silence  cuts  both  ways.  If  the  analytic  critic  should  say  that, 
as  there  is  no  mention  of  the  observance  of  the  law  in  regard  to 

»Isa.  56:2;  58:  13. 

211.  Kings  4 :  23  ;  11 :  5 ;  7:9;  16 :  18  ;  I.  Chr.  9 :  32  ;  23 :  31 ;  II.  Chr.  2:4; 
8:  13;  23:4,  8;  31:3;  36:21.  =«Gen.  2:2,  3.  *  Ex.  16  :  22-30. 

"  Ex.  30  :  10  ;  Lev.  16 :  1-34  ;  23 :  26-32  ;  Num.  29 :  7-11. 


THE   HISTORICAL  ARGUMENT  247 

the  Day  of  Atonement  previous  to  the  exile,  there  was  no  such 
observance,  and  hence  there  was  no  such  law,  the  answer  is  easy 
and  obvious ;  for  there  is  no  mention  of  the  observance  of  the 
law  even  in  post-exilic  times.  Indeed,  there  is  no  reference  to 
the  law  at  all  after  the  exile  until  the  first  century.  There  is  a 
supposed  reference  to  it  in  Josephus  ^  and  another  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,^  and  there  is  a  clear  reference  to  it  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.^  Hence,  according  to  the  argumentum  e  sile^itio^ 
which  our  analytic  critics  are  so  fond  of  using,  the  law  estab- 
lishing the  Da}^  of  Atonement  and  the  books  which  refer  to  it 
had  no  existence  until  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era. 
The  argument  which  involves  such  a  conclusion  is  worthless. 
Reuss  makes  an  effort,  though  not  a  very  vigorous  one,  to  show 
from  the  silence  of  the  record  that  the  restored  exiles  did  not  ob- 
serve the  Day  of  Atonement  until  the  arrival  of  Ezra  among 
them.*  The  critic  seems  oblivious  of  the  fact  that  his  reasoning 
involves  the  absurd  conclusion  mentioned  above. 

Graf  accepts  the  argument  from  silence  as  proving  that  the 
Day  of  Atonement  was  not  observed  until  long  after  the  exile. 
According  to  his  view,  the  law  was  in  the  Pentateuchal  books 
from  the  time  of  Ezra,  but  was  neglected  and  disobeyed  for  hun- 
dreds of  years.  By  parity  of  reasoning,  the  law  may  have  been 
in  the  Pentateuchal  books  before  the  time  of  Ezra,  though  neg- 
lected and  disobeyed. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  the  laws  in  regard  to  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  the  Sabbath,  the  Passover,  and  the  unity  of  worship 
were  in  force  in  the  time  of  Moses  and  afterward.  This  not 
only  refutes  the  argument  of  the  analysts  drawn  from  the  neg- 
lect and  violation  of  these  laws,  but  also  constitutes  presumptive 
proof  that  the  books  containing  these  laws  were  in  existence  in 
the  time  of  Moses. 

» Antiquities,  14  :  16  :  4.  «  Acts  27 :  9.  »  Heb.  9 :  7. 

*  L'Histoire  Sainte,  pp.  260,  261. 


CHAPTER  VI 
TESTIMONY  OF  CHRIST  AND  THE  APOSTLES 

That  the  testimony  of  the  New  Testament  is  in  favor  of  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  needs  scarcely  to  be  proved. 
The  most  of  the  analytic  critics  admit  that  the  authority  of 
Christ  and  the  apostles  is  against  them.  So  fully  convinced  are 
they  of  this  fact  that  they  have  been  trying  to  push  the  doctrine 
of  the  kenosis  far  enough  to  include  the  fallibility  and  errancy  of 
Christ.  A  few  of  the  analysts,  not  willing  to  believe  that  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  erred  in  biblical  matters,  have  refused  to  admit 
that  he  recognized  Moses  as  the  author  of  the  Pentateuchal 
books.  Such  critics  are  doubtless  in  a  strait  betwixt  two, 
unwilling  to  believe  that  the  great  Teacher  erred  in  his  didactic 
utterances,  and  yet  unwilling  to  give  up  their  anti-Mosaic 
theories.     Such  men  have  our  commiseration. 

Christ  distinctly  recognized  Moses  as  the  author  of  both  the 
Pentateuchal  laws  and  books. 

I.     The  laws. 

"And  the  Pharisees  came  to  him,  and  asked  him,  Is  it  lawful 
for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife?  tempting  him.  And  he 
answered  and  said  unto  them.  What  did  Moses  command  you  ? 
And  they  said,  Moses  suffered  to  write  a  bill  of  divorcement, 
and  to  put  her  away.  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them. 
For  the  hardness  of  your  heart  he  wrote  you  this  precept."^ 
The  law  or  the  part  of  the  law  here  mentioned  is  found  in 
Deuteronomy  24  :  1-4. 

"Offer  the  gift  that  Moses  commanded,  for  a  testimony  unto 
them.  "2  The  law  of  lepro.sy  here  mentioned  is  contained  in  the 
thirteenth  and  fourteenth  chapters  of  Leviticus. 

"Moses  said.  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother, "3  Moses  is 
here  recognized  as  the  author  of  the  fifth  commandment,  and 
impliedly  of  the  whole  decalogue. 

"These  are  the  words  which  I  spake  unto  you,  while  I  was  j^et 

with  you,  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled  which  were  written 

>  Mark  10  :  2-5.  2  Matt.  8:4.  3  Mark  7  :  10. 

248 


TESTIMONY  OF   CHRIST  AND   THE)  APOSTLES  249 

in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  Prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms, 
concerning  nie."i  In  this  declaration  "the  law  of  Moses"  is 
undoubtedly  the  law  contained  in  the  Pentateuch  ;  but  the  Pen- 
tateuch, as  containing  the  law,  is  also  meant,  and  is  distinguished 
from  the  two  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament — the  prophecies 
and  Psalms.  Moses  is  thus  designated  as  the  author  boih  of  the 
Pentateuch  as  containing  the  law,  and  of  the  law  itself. 

Again,  "Moses  therefore  gave  unto  you  circumcision;  (not 
because  it  is  of  Moses,  but  of  the  fathers  ; )  and  ye  on  the  Sabbath 
day  circumcise  a  man ;  .  .  .  that  the  law  of  Moses  should  not  be 
broken. "2  Qur  Lord  in  this  declaration  states  that  circumcision 
did  not  originate  with  Moses,  but  with  his  predecessors ;  that 
Moses  had  transmitted  this  rite  to  the  Israelites,  and  that  he  was 
the  author  of  the  law  which  enjoined  it  upon  them. 

2.  In  regard  to  Moses  as  the  author  of  the  Pentateuchal  writ- 
ings, our  Saviour  spoke  as  follows :  "  And  as  touching  the  dead, 
that  they  rise;  have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses,  how  in  the 
bush  God  spake  unto  him,  saying,  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham, 
and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob ?"3  The  passage 
here  referred  to  is  contained  in  Exodus.*  But  so  far  as  the 
question  of  Pentateuchal  authorship  is  concerned,  it  makes  little 
difference,  whether  by  "the  book  of  Moses"  is  meant  the  whole 
Pentateuch  or  only  the  Book  of  Exodus.  For  if  Moses  wrote 
this,  he  certainly  wrote  also  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 
To  every  reverent  and  logical  mind  who  believes  in  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  as  an  infallible  and  inerrant  Teacher,  this  one  dec- 
laration is  a  complete  refutation  of  all  the  analytic  theories. 

"  Do  not  think  that  I  will  accuse  you  to  the  Father :  there  is 
one  that  accuseth  you,  even  Moses,  in  whom  ye  trust.  For  had 
ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  believed  me :  for  he  wrote  of 
me.  But  if  3'e  believe  not  his  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  my 
words.  "5  Our  divine  Lord  thus  spoke  of  compositions  of  Moses 
that  were  accessible  to  those  whom  he  addressed.  He  speaks  of 
these  writings  as  being  known  to  his  hearers.  They  had  read 
them,  but  did  not  believe  them.  He  addresses  them  as  having 
these  well-known  writings  of  Moses  in  their  possession.  But 
where?  Undoubtedly  in  the  Pentateuch,  which  they  had  in 
their  Hebrew  Bibles  and  the  Septuagint  Version.  The  only 
writings  ascribed  to  Moses  are  found  there,  and  are  found  no- 
where else.    The  hearers  of  Christ  would  naturally  and  inevitably 

>  Luke  24  :  44.     «  John  7 :  22,  2.':!.      ^  Mark  12  :  26.     *  Ex.  3  :  6.    «  John  5  :  4.5-47. 


250  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH 

understand  him  as  referring  to  the  writings  of  Moses  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch, and  undoubtedly  he  intended  that  they  should  so 
understand  him. 

"He  wrote  of  me."  How  and  where  did  Moses  write  of 
Christ  ?  He  wrote  of  him  as  the  seed  of  the  woman  ;  ^  as  the 
seed  of  Abraham ;  ^  as  the  coming  Shiloh  ;  ^  as  the  Star  out  of 
Jacob ;  *  as  the  Scepter  rising  out  of  Israel ;  ^  as  the  Passover 
lyamb,  not  a  bone  of  which  was  to  be  broken  ;  ^  as  the  goat  for 
■separation,  bearing  away  the  sins  of  Israel ;  ^  as  represented  in 
the  types  and  shadows  of  the  tabernacle  and  of  the  tabernacle 
service,  and  as  the  great  Prophet.' 

"They  have  Moses  and  the  Prophets  ;  let  them  hear  them.  .  .  . 
If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  neither  will  they  be 
persuaded  though  one  rose  from  the  dead."^  In  this  passage 
the  Prophets  are  put  for  what  the  prophets  wrote,  and  Moses  is 
put  for  what  Moses  wTote.  And  our  Lord  speaks  of  the  writings 
of  Moses,  as  well  as  of  the  prophets,  as  being  known  and  acces- 
sible to  the  people  whom  he  addressed.  It  is  clearly  implied  that 
there  were  writings  in  the  Old  Testament  that  were  understood 
to  be  Mosaic,  and  our  Saviour  here  refers  to  them  as  such. 

In  one  of  the  passages  quoted  above  we  have  a  threefold  divi- 
sion of  the  Old  Testament  —  the  law  of  Moses,  the  Prophets,  and 
the  Psalms.^  The  first  division,  called  the  I^aw,  is  undoubtedly 
the  Pentateuch. 

It  is  thus  shown  that  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuchal 
books  is  ascribed  by  our  Saviour  to  Moses,  in  almost  every  pos- 
sible form  of  expression— "the  law  of  Moses,"  "book  of 
Moses,"  "writings  of  Moses,"  "Moses  wrote,"  "Moses  said," 
"Moses  commanded,"  "Moses  gave" ;  and  in  every  case  he  was 
necessarily  understood  as  referring  to  books,  writings,  and  laws 
that  are  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  his  hearers 
ascribed  to  Moses.  And  further,  he  was  necessarily  understood 
by  his  hearers  as  himself  acknowledging  these  books,  writings, 
and  laws  as  the  productions  of  Moses. 

^  The  testimony  of  the  apostles  and  New  Testament  writers  in 
regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  of  course  harmonizes 
with  that  of  Christ.  "For  the  Law  was  given  by  Moses. "^o 
"We  have  found  him  of  whom  Moses  in  the  Law,  and  the 
Prophets,  did  write. "  1  ^     "  And  when  the  days  of  her  purification 

1  Gen.  3  :  15.  «  Gen.  22 :  18.  ^  (^gn.  49 :  10.  *  Num.  24  :  17. 

"  Ex.  12  :  46.  «  Lev.  16 :  20-22.  ■f  Deut.  18 :  18.  »  Luke  16  :  29, 31. 

•Luke  24:  44.  i"Johnl:17.  i'Johnl:45. 


TESTIMONY  OF  CHRIST  AND   THE   APOSTI^ES  25 1 

according  to  the  law  of  Moses  were  accomplished."!  "Both 
out  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and  out  of  the  Prophets."-  "Moses 
describeth  the  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law."^  "It  is 
written  in  the  law  of  Moses."*  "When  Moses  is  read." ^  "He 
that  despised  Moses'  law."^  Thus  we  have  the  testimony  of  the 
apostles  and  New  Testament  writers  in  harmony  with  that  of 
Christ  in  regard  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuchal 
laws  and  writings. 

The  validity  of  this  testimony,  the  validity  of  the  testimony 
even  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  has  been  called  in  question  by 
some  of  his  professed  friends  and  followers.  Many  of  that  class 
of  analytic  critics  who  profess  the  evangelical  faith,  rather  than 
give  up  their  theories  take  the  position  that  our  I^ord  and 
Saviour  was  fallible  and  errant,  and  that  he  was  mistaken  in 
regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  Some  of  these 
critics  seem  to  think  that  it  devolves  upon  them  to  point  out 
errors  in  the  public  and  biblical  instructions  of  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God.  Such  men,  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation, 
according  to  the  Mosaic  law,  would  have  been  stoned  to  death 
for  blasphemy. 

In  regard  to  Christ's  inerrancy,  we  remark  as  follows: 

1.  We  expect  such  men  as  Reuss,  Graf,  Kuenen,  and  Well- 
hausen — rationalists,  skeptics,  veritable  infidels — to  reject  the 
testimony  of  Christ  in  regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch and  in  every  other  case  in  which  it  is  opposed  to  their 
views  and  theories.  These  leaders  of  the  analytic  school  were 
and  are  disbelievers  in  the  Bible,  in  divine  inspiration,  and  the 
deity  of  Christ.  Their  writings  indicate  that  they  consider 
Christ  a  mere  human  being,  much  inferior  to  themselves  in 
biblical  knowledge.  That  such  men  should  charge  our  Lord 
with  error  creates  no  scandal. 

2.  The  Scripture  doctrine  of  Christ's  kenosis"^  does  not  imply 
that  he  was  fallible  and  errant.  Truly  he  emptied  himself  when 
he  became  man.  Christ  as  man  was  doubtless  subject  to  limita- 
tions. His  knowledge,  it  appears,  was  not  absolutely'  infinite. 
For  there  is  one  thing  he  did  not  know — the  time  of  the  end.^ 
But  this  is  the  only  thing  which  our  Saviour  is  said  not  to  have 
known.  The  language  employed  concerning  him  implies  that  he 
knew  everything  else.     Peter  said  to  him,  "Thou  knowest  all 

» Luke  2  :  22.  *  Acts  28 :  23.  »  Rom.  10 :  5.  *  I.  Cor.  9 :  9. 

•  II.  Cor.  3  :  15.  «  Heb.  10 :  28.  '  Phil.  2:7.  » Mark  13 :  32. 


252  MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP    OF    THEi    PEiNTATKUCH 

things."^  He  knew  the  hearts  of  men,  reading  their  thoughts, 
though  secret  and  concealed. ^  The  future  was  known  to  him.'^ 
Things  absent  and  distant  were  to  him  as  things  present.  It 
was  Christ's  omniscience  as  indicated  by  the  declaration, 
' '  Before  that  Philip  called  thee,  when  thou  wast  under  the  fig 
tree,  I  saw  thee,"  which  drew  from  Nathanael  the  confession, 
"  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God ;  thou  art  the  King  of  Israel."*  The 
woman  of  Samaria  proclaimed  Christ's  omniscience,  in  saying, 
' '  Come,  see  a  man  w^hich  told  me  all  things  that  ever  I  did :  is 
not  this  the  Christ?  * '  ^  The  talk  of  the  Jews  concerning  Christ's 
learning  and  knowledge  is  very  significant:  "And  the  Jews 
marveled,  saying,  How  knoweth  this  man  letters,  having  never 
learned? "6  Yet  our  analytic  critics  will  have  it  that  he  did  not 
know  who  wrote  the  Pentateuch.  The  examples  we  have  given 
of  Christ's  extraordinary  and  superhuman  knowledge,  we  may 
indeed  say,  of  his  omniscience,  all  relate  to  him  as  beset  by 
human  conditions  in  this  life.  There  is  but  one  exception 
stated  as  to  the  universality  of  his  knowledge,  namely,  his  not 
knowing  the  time  of  the  end.  This  exceptional  case  is  myster- 
ious and  strange.  Reverent  minds,  that  have  no  theories  to 
support,  are  not  disposed  to  draw  conclusions  from  it.  The  rea- 
soning of  some  of  our  analysts  in  regard  to  it  is  preposterous,  as 
follows :  Christ  did  not  know  the  time  of  the  end ;  therefore, 
he  was  mistaken  in  regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 
There  is  a  wide  chasm  between  the  premises  and  the  conclusion. 
3.  The  analytic  critics,  in  endeavoring  to  get  rid  of  Christ's 
testimony  against  their  theories  of  Pentateuchal  authorship, 
charge  him  not  with  ignorance  merely,  but  with  thinking  that 
he  knew,  when  he  did  not;  with  such  ignorance  as  led  him  to 
make  an  untrue  declaration.  Christ  knew  that  he  did  not  know 
the  time  of  the  end,  and  he  made  no  declaration  concerning  it. 
According  to  the  analytic  theory,  Christ  overrated  his  own 
knowledge.  He  thought  he  knew  who  wrote  the  Pentateuch, 
but  did  not,  and  hence  made  a  mistaken  declaration  in  regard  to 
it.  Here  again  the  logic  of  the  analyst  is  exceedingly  bad.  It 
proceeds  thus :  Christ  knew  that  he  did  not  know  the  time  of 
the  end,  and  was  silent  in  regard  to  it ;  therefore,  he  might  in 
some  case  overrate  his  knowledge,  thinking  he  knew,  when  he 
did  not,  and  thus  be  led  to  make  a  mistaken  declaration. 

1  John  21:  17.  sLuke6:8.  3Johnl:48.  *  John  1 :  48,  49. 

sJohn4:29.  6John7:15. 


TESTIMONY  OF  CHRIST  AND  THE  APOSTI.ES  253 

4.  Many  of  the  declarations  of  Christ  concerning  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  were  made  by  him  after  the  trans- 
figuration, and  one  of  them  was  made  after  his  resurrection.^ 
Indeed,  after  these  events  it  is  evident  that  he  held  the  same 
views  in  regard  to  this  subject  as  before,  for  he  took  back  noth- 
ing that  he  had  said,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  virtuall}-  reiterated 
after  his  resurrection  all  his  previous  declarations  in  regard  to  it. 
"These  are  the  words  which  I  spake  unto  you,  while  I  was  yet 
with  you,  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled  which  were  written  in 
the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  Prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms,  con- 
cerning me."  ^  According  to  the  analytic  criticism,  our  blessed 
lyord  held  and  taught  error  up  to  the  very  time  of  his  departure 
from  the  earth.  According  to  the  anal3'tic  criticism,  he  did  not 
iearn  his  error  in  regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch, 
though  he  talked  with  Moses  on  the  mount  of  transfiguration  ; 
nor  were  his  views  on  this  subject  clarified  and  corrected  by  his 
death  and  resurrection.  To  us  the  spectacle  of  men,  professors 
of  the  Christian  faith,  however  learned  and  able  they  may  be, 
assuming  that  the  Lord  of  life  and  glory  was  fallible  and  errant, 
and  undertaking  to  tell  how  and  why  he  erred,  would  be 
supremely  absurd  and  ridiculous,  were  it  not  so  sad  and  repul- 
sive. All  this,  of  course,  is  lost  upon  such  leaders  of  the  ana- 
lytic school  as  Reuss  and  Wellhausen,  who  have  no  more  faith 
in  the  incarnation,  transfiguration,  resurrection,  or  ascension  of 
Christ,  or  in  any  other  supernatural  event,  than  Paine  and  Vol- 
taire. But  there  are  anal3'tic  critics,  not  leaders,  who  ought  not 
to  be  impervious  to  the  foregoing  considerations. 

5.  The  smooth  phrases  that  are  sometimes  employed  by 
analytic  critics  to  express  their  notion  of  Christ's. fallibility  are 
deceptive.  That  '  *  Christ  condescended  not  to  know, ' '  like  most 
other  euphemisms,  is  misleading.  These  critics  would  express 
their  notion  of  our  Lord's  fallibility  more  fully  and  fairly  by 
saying  that  he  condescended  to  err ;  that  he  condescended  to 
make  untrue  declarations ;  and  that  he  condescended  to  keep 
on  making  untrue  declarations  after  his  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  even  up  to  the  time  of  his  ascension.  The}',  of  course, 
give  him  credit  for  uttering  onl}'  what  he  believed  to  be  strictlj' 
true,  and  for  aiming  to  tell  nothing  but  the  truth.  Yet  they 
hold  that,  in  fact,  he  deviated  from  the  truth  in  regard  to  the 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  also  in  some  other  matters. 

1  Luke  24  :  44. 


254  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PEJNTATEIUCH 

Even  the  smooth-speaking  Driver  says  that  Christ  was  mistaken 
in  regard  to  the  Davidic  authorship  of  the  One  Hundred  and 
Tenth  Psalm.  ^  Are  such  mistakes  and  errors  to  be  proved  and 
accounted  for  by  Christ's  condesceyision?  The  next  thing  for 
our  analysts  to  do  is  to  maintain  that  the  Holy  One  of  God 
condescended  to  commit  sin. 

6.  Aside  from  the  divine  nature  in  Christ's  person,  there  is 
an  antecedent  probability,  or  rather  certaint}',  that  the  gift  and 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  would  secure  truth  and  accuracy  in 
all  his  biblical  instructions  and  didactic  utterances.  Christ 
assured  his  apostles  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  teach  them  all 
things,  and  bring  to  their  remembrance  whatsoever  he  had 
spoken  to  them.^  He  promised  that  the  Spirit  of  truth  should 
guide  them  into  all  truth,  and  also  show  them  things  to  come.^ 
He  informed  them  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should  so  enter  into  them, 
possess  and  actuate  them,  that  their  speaking  would  be  the  Holy 
Spirit  speaking  in  them.'*  Accordingly,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
"they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak 
with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance."  ^  Men 
thus  filled,  influenced,  and  guided  by  the  Spirit  were  certainly 
inerrant.  We  do  not  enter  upon  the  discussion  of  plenary 
inspiration.  We  are  not  now  maintaining  that  the  apostles 
were  inerrant  as  teachers  at  all  times,  though  we  believe  they 
were.  But  when  they  were  filled  and  guided  by  the  Spirit ; 
when  they  were  speaking  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance ; 
when  they  were  so  much  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  that 
the  Spirit  spake  in  them  ;  when  this  state  of  things  existed  and 
as  long  as  it  existed,  the  apostles  would  no  more  mistake  and  err 
than  a  child  would  fall  when  guided  and  held  by  its  parent's 
hand.  Now  Christ's  humanity  was  sustained  and  guided  not 
only  by  the  deity  within  him,  but  also  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  After 
his  baptism  at  Jordan  the  Holy  Spirit  descended  upon  liim.^ 
Next  we  read  that  he  was  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  was  led  or 
driven  by  the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness  to  be  tempted  of  the 
devil.''  Again,  we  read  that  "  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by 
measure  unto  him."  '^  These  declarations  show  that  he  had 
more  of  the  Spirit  and  more  of  the  Spirit's  influence  than  the 
apostles.  Since  the  Spirit  guided  them  and  spoke  in  them  so 
that  they  spoke  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance,  much  more 

"^Introduction  to  the  lAterature  of  the  Old  Testament,  Preface,  p.  xiv  ;  also,  p.  362 
2Johnl4:26.  3johnl6:13.  *  Mark  13:  11.  «  Acts  2  ;  4. 

eiiuke  3 :  22  "^ Luke  4:1;  Mark  1:12;  ]Matt.  4  r  1.  ^  john  3  :  34 


TESTIMONY   OF  CHRIST  AND  THE  APOSTLES  255 

were  Christ's  sayings  in   accordance  with    the    mind    of  the 
Spirit. 

Besides  this,  the  relation  between  Christ  and  the  Father  was 
such  as  to  make  the  acts  and  sayings  of  the  former  the  acts  and 
sayings  of  the  latter.  Of  this  there  are  many  proofs.  Christ 
himself  said :  "I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me.  The 
words  that  I  speak  unto  you  I  speak  not  of  myself:  but  the 
Father,  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works.  "^  And  again  : 
"For  I  have  not  spoken  of  myself;  but  the  Father  which  sent 
me,  he  gave  me  a  commandment,  what  I  should  say,  and  what  I 
should  speak.  And  I  know  that  his  commandment  is  life  ever- 
lasting: whatsoever  I  speak  therefore,  even  as  the  Father  said 
unto  me,  so  I  speak. "2  Once  more,  "I  do  nothing  of  myself; 
but  as  my  Father  hath  taught  me,  I  speak  these  things. ' "  3  Thus 
Christ  taught  that  the  Father  concurred  and  cooperated  with  him 
in  all  that  he  said  and  did.  Still  further,  Christ  was  in  constant 
communion  w^ith  the  Father.  He  spent  whole  nights  in  prayer. 
His  prayers  were  always  effectual.  At  the  tomb  of  Lazarus 
Christ  said,  "I  knew  that  thou  hearest  me  always."*  Now 
Christ  certainly  prayed  for  all  that  was  desirable  for  himself.  It 
was  certainly  desirable  that  he  should  be  kept  from  all  errors  in 
regard  to  biblical  matters.  The  order  and  connection  of  these 
ideas  are  as  follows  :  It  was  desirable  that  our  Saviour  should  be 
exempt  from  all  errors  in  teaching,  including  those  charged  upon 
him  by  the  analytic  critics  in  regard  to  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch;  he,  therefore,  praj-ed  for  exemption  from  such 
errors ;  he  never  prayed  to  the  Father  in  vain  ;  therefore,  in  all 
his  didactic  utterances  and  in  all  his  declarations  concerning  the 
Scriptures  he  was  infallible  and  inerrant. 

It  is  not  likely  that  the  analysts  will  take  the  position  that  it 
was  not  desirable  that  our  Lord  should  avoid  all  mistakes  in  his 
teaching.  They  will  scarcely  apply  to  the  supposed  errors  of 
Christ  the  doctrine  that  evil,  even  sin,  is  overruled  for  good. 
They  have  been  at  work  for  a  hundred  years,  trying  to  over- 
throw the  opinion  which  Christ  sanctioned,  namel}^,  that  ]\Ioses 
wrote  the  Pentateuch;  and  that  he  sanctioned  it  is  one  of  the 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  success.  According  to  their  theories, 
most  assuredly  it  was  desirable  that  Christ  should  have  been 
kept  from  this  error,  which  is  certainly  not  to  be  accounted  for 
on  the  principle  of  doing  evil  that  good  may  come. 

'  John  U  :  10.  « John  12  :  49,  50.  =»  John  8  :  28.  •*  John  11 :  42. 


256  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

It  has  been  urged  that  on  the  question  of  the  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  there  should  be  no  appeal  to  the  teachings  of 
Christ.  This  seems  to  us  a  strange  and  narrow  view.  Critics 
are  accustomed  to  quote  anything  they  can  find  in  Josephus  or 
any  other  author  bearing  on  any  biblical  question  under  discus- 
sion. Critics  do  not  hesitate  to  test  the  accuracy  of  Genesis  by 
the  discoveries  of  modern  science.  It  is  entirely  proper  to  employ 
the  discoveries  of  Egyptologists  and  other  archaeologists  in 
discussing  the  accuracy  and  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch, 
though,  indeed,  .the  testimony  derived  from  such  sources  is 
pretty  much  all  in  favor  of  one  side.  It  is,  perhaps,  because  of 
the  one-sidedness  of  this  testimony  that  the  analysts  are  by  no 
means  fond  of  it,  and  that  Wellhausen  uttered  his  famous  sneer 
that  "Jehovah  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  God-forsaken 
dreariness  of  certain  Eg3'ptologists."^  It  is,  of  course,  good 
policy  on  the  part  of  the  opponents  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  to  exclude,  if  possible,  the  declarations  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles  from  consideration  in  the  decision  of  the  ques- 
tion. The  attorney  in  court  may  be  counted  on  to  keep  out,  if 
he  can,  all  testimony  that  would  prove  damaging  to  his  case. 

» Ifirael,  p.  440. 


CHAPTER  VII 

CONSEQUENCES 

Wn  propose  in  this  closing  chapter  to  speak  of  the  tendencies 
and  effects  of  the  analytic  system,  the  hypotheses  and  ideas  em- 
braced in  it,  and  the  arguments  by  which  they  are  supported. 

It  may  be  said, — indeed,  it  has  been  said, — that  at  most  not 
much  harm  can  result  from  the  acceptance  of  the  hypothesis  of 
the  non-Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  the  acceptance 
of  analytic  views  of  the  authorship  of  any  of  the  anonymous 
books  of  the  Bible.  It  is  indeed  true  that  the  human  authorship 
of  a  divinely  inspired  book  is  in  itself  of  little  importance.  Nor 
is  the  question  whether  such  a  book  was  produced  through  the 
instrumentality  of  one  author  or  many  of  much  importance  in 
itself.  We  recognize  the  fact  that  the  great  question  concerning 
the  Pentateuch,  as  well  as  concerning  every  other  book  of  the 
Bible,  is  whether  it  is  divinely  inspired.  If  God  is  its  author,  it 
is  to  be  believed,  reverenced,  and  obeyed,  no  matter  by  whom  or 
in  what  age  it  was  written.  But  in  the  case  of  the  Pentateuch 
the  question  of  its  authorship,  as  discussed  by  the  analysts,  is 
intimately  connected  with  the  question  of  its  divine  inspiration, 
and  of  that  of  the  whole  Bible.  We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the 
Pentateuch  can  neither  be  the  word,  nor  contain  the  word,  of  God, 
nor  have  any  divine  authority,  if  it  is  such  a  book  as  the  analytic 
school  represents  it  to  be.  We  think  that  the  analytic  view  of  its 
authorship,  as  now  set  forth  and  defended,  must,  in  the  end,  result 
in  thoroughgoing  skepticism.  We  believe,  indeed,  that  the  out- 
come of  the  hypotheses  and  argumentation  necessary  to  defend 
that  view  must  logically  and  inevitably  be  downright  rationalism 
and  infidelity.  Such  will  not  be  the  immediate  result  in  most, 
or  perhaps  in  many,  cases.  Generally,  those  who  construct  or 
adopt  a  new  theory  do  not  carry  it  out  to  its  legitimate  conse- 
quences. In  many  cases  a  generation  or  two  must  pass  before 
the  character  and  tendencies  of  a  new  theory  can  be  tested  by  its 
practical  results.  The  foremost  thinkers,  the  men  of  logic  and 
intellectual  intrepidity,  are  the  first  to  carry  new  views  and  ideas 

17  257 


258  MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE)   PENTATEUCH 

to  their  ultimate  conclusions.  Already  the  leaders  of  the  ana- 
lytic school,  the  men  who  have  filled  out  and  completed  the 
system,  and  who  best  know  what  positions  must  be  taken  in 
order  to  defend  it,  have  become  rationalists,  which  is  another 
name  for  infidels.  Many  of  their  followers  —  men  possibly  of 
equal  learning,  but  of  feebler  intellectual  grasp — are  lagging  at 
a  distance  behind  them,  but  moving  on  in  the  same  direction. 
Some  of  these  may  stop  in  their  course  and  stand  doggedly  still ; 
some  may  turn  round  and  retrace  their  steps ;  but  a  logical  mind 
once  adopting  analytic  views  can  scarcely  avoid  moving  on 
towards  skepticism  and  infidelity. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  as  shown  in  the  preceding  chapter,  the 
analytic  hypothesis  in  regard  to  the  authorship  and  date  of 
the  Pentateuchal  books  involves  the  conclusion  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  while  on  earth,  was  fallible  and  errant,  adopting 
erroneous  opinions  current  among  the  Jews  and  giving  them  out 
in  his  public  instructions.  The  analytic  hypothesis  charges  our 
divine  I^ord  with  more  serious  error  than  incorrect  teaching  in 
regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Psalms.  It 
virtually  charges  him  with  false  teaching  in  regard  to  the  infal- 
libility and  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  He  declared  that  * '  the 
Scripture  cannot  be  broken."^  Again,  having  spoken  of 
"the  Ivaw  and  the  Prophets,"  he  said,  *'Till  heaven  and  earth 
pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  Law,  till 
all  be  fulfilled. "2  Again,  having  spoken  of  "the  Law  and  the 
Prophets,"  he  added,  "And  it  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to 
pass,  than  one  tittle  of  the  Law  to  fail."^  All  these  declarations 
were  necessarily  understood  by  Christ's  hearers  as  referring  to 
Scripture  and  law  as  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  as  well  as 
to  the  other  Scriptures,  and  he  undoubtedly  intended  them  to  be 
so  understood.  But  our  analytics,  in  opposition  to  our  Lord's 
teachings,  maintain  that  much  of  the  Pentateuchal  Scripture  is 
broken  and  marred  by  contradictions,  misstatements,  and  other 
errors,  and  that  much  of  the  Pentateuchal  law  is  nullified  and 
fails  in  the  same  way.  Thus  our  Saviour  is  declared  to  be  falli- 
ble and  errant  even  in  his  public  declarations  concerning  the 
Scriptures.  Now  what  must  be  the  effect  of  such  an  opinion, 
when  fully  accepted?  What  efiect  must  it  have  upon  little 
children  and  upon  larger  boys  and  girls  to  inform  them  that 
Jesus,  the  Lord  from  heaven,  was  a  fallible  teacher  and  made 

1  John  10 :  35.  *  Matt.  5 :  18.  ^  j^^^q  iq  .  17. 


CONSEQUENCES  259 

mistakes  even  in  speaking  of  the  Scriptures?  And  what  effect 
must  all  this  have  on  men  in  general?  Had  Nathanael  found 
Christ  mistaken  in  his  declaration  as  to  having  seen  him  under 
the  fig  tree,  the  Israelite  without  guile  would  have  rejected  his 
claims  to  the  Messiahship.  Had  the  woman  of  Samaria  found 
him  mistaken  in  any  of  his  declarations  in  regard  to  her  former 
life,  instead  of  proclaiming,  "Come,  see  a  man  which  told  me 
all  things  that  ever  I  did,"  she  would  have  pronounced  him  an 
impostor.  And  just  let  mankind  in  general  become  convinced 
that  Jesus  made  mistakes  in  his  teachings  and  uttered  incorrect 
declarations  about  the  Scriptures,  and  the  conclusion  will  even- 
tually be  reached  that  he  is  not  the  Son  of  God  and  Lord  from 
heaven.  The  logic  and  common  sense  of  the  human  mind  will 
advance  from  belief  in  the  fallibility  and  errancy  of  Christ  to 
the  skepticism  of  Reuss,  Graf,  Kuenen,  and  Wellhausen,  Paine 
and  Voltaire. 

Some  of  the  analytic  critics  of  the  less  advanced  class  seem 
themselves  to  consider  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  fallibility  dan- 
gerous. Their  cautious  and  euphemistic  way  of  speaking  of  it 
indicates  this,  or  else,  like  the  ancient  enemies  of  Christ,  they 
"fear  the  people."  These  critics,  of  course,  represent  the  errors 
which  they  charge  on  him  as  trivial.  Yet  they  themselves,  after 
a  century  of  effort,  continue  to  write  essays,  reviews,  and  books, 
and  to  employ  all  the  resources  of  learning  and  logic,  to  con- 
vince the  world  that  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch, 
though  recognized  by  Christ,  is  an  error.  Besides,  the  analytic 
criticism  virtually  charges  it  as  an  error  on  Christ  and  the 
apostles  that  they  refer  to  and  quote  the  Pentateuch  as  divinely 
inspired  and  authoritative. 

2.  The  analytic  system  tends  and  leads  to  the  rejection  of  the 
doctrine  of  divine  inspiration. 

'No  portion  of  the  Old  Testament  is  more  distinctly  and  author- 
itatively recognized  in  the  New  than  the  Pentateuch.  It  is 
referred  to  by  Christ  and  the  apostles  as  trustworthy  and  author- 
itative. It  is  quoted  as  divinely  inspired.  The  laws  and  writ- 
ings are  appealed  to,  indeed,  as  those  of  Moses,  but  they  are 
appealed  to  as  being  at  the  same  time  the  laws  and  writings  of 
God.  In  all  the  references  to  it  and  the  quotations  from  it  its 
declarations  are  treated  as  unquestionably  true,  trustworthy, 
divinely  inspired,  authoritative,  proceeding  indeed  from  Moses, 
but  proceeding  also  from  God.    Thus  was  the  Pentateuch  re- 


26o  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OP   THE)    PENTATEUCH 

garded  and  treated  by  Christ,  the  apostles,  and  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament.  But  the  views  given  of  it  by  the  analytics  are 
totally  different,  and  are  incompatible  with  its  divine  inspiration 
and  authority.  They  claim  that  the  Pentateuch,  except  possibly 
a  few  scraps  of  it,  was  not  written  by  Moses,  but  was  gotten  up 
by  a  crowd  of  utterly  unknown  authors,  compilers,  redactors, 
and  interpolators,  who  worked  on  original  documents,  combin- 
ing, selecting,  omitting,  arranging,  inserting,  altering,  and 
adding,  each  one  according  to  his  own  judgment  and  taste,  the 
result  being  a  conglomerate  patchwork,  characterized  by  inac- 
curacy, contradiction,  and  error.  To  claim  divine  authorship, 
inspiration,  and  authority  for  such  a  production  looks  like  an 
attempt  to  burlesque  the  doctrine  of  divine  inspiration.  Doubt- 
less some  relics  of  this  old-fashioned  doctrine  still  linger  in  the 
minds  of  many  of  the  less  advanced  analytic  critics.  These  will 
manage  in  some  way,  though  at  the  expense  of  logic  and  self- 
consistency,  to  believe  the  Pentateuch  to  be  in  some  sense  a 
book  from  God.  But  even  analysts  of  the  evangelical  class 
argue  that  the  Pentateuch  is  too  inaccurate  and  self-contradic- 
tory, abounds  too  much  in  legends  and  fictions,  and  is 
altogether  too  untrustworthy  to  have  been  written  by  Moses. 
Men  who  reason  thus,  and  who  have  as  much  respect  for  the 
Almighty  as  for  Moses,  will  be  very  likely  to  conclude  that  the 
Pentateuch  is  not  to  be  attributed  in  any  sense  or  in  any  degree 
to  supernatural  authorship  ;  and  they  further  will  be  likely  to 
apply  their  idea  of  inspiration,  or  rather  of  non-inspiration,  to 
all  other  parts  of  the  Bible.  Thus  is  evinced  the  utter  incom- 
patibility between  the  analytic  view  of  the  Pentateuch  and  any 
respectable  doctrine  of  divine  inspiration.  In  the  meantime,  the 
chiefs  and  leaders  of  the  analytic  school,  who  repudiate  the  doc- 
trine of  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  can  well  afford 
to  be  silent  in  regard  to  their  infidel  views,  expecting,  and 
rightly  expecting,  that  the  expulsive  power  of  the  analytic 
criticism  will  in  time  do  its  perfect  work  in  the  minds  of  their 
disciples. 

3.  The  analytic  criticism  discredits  and  dishonors  nearly 
all  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  essence  of 
history  is  trtUhfulness.  Take  this  away  and  the  history  is 
destroyed.  It  is  not  enough  that  the  historian  be  truthful  as  an 
individual.  It  is  not  enough  that  he  desires  and  endeavors  to 
tell  the  truth  ;  he  must  actually  do  so.    He  must  present  facts, 


CONSEQUENCES  261 

and  present  them  as  they  occurred.  If,  even  unconsciously,  he 
deals  in  fiction,  legend,  and  falsehood,  he  forfeits  the  confidence 
and  esteem  of  mankind.  A  book  of  legends  and  fictions  may  be 
in  itself  well  enough.  But  a  book  which  claims  to  be  historical, 
and  yet  is  made  up  largely  of  myths,  tales,  and  doubtful  narra- 
tives, does  not  command  the  respect  of  mankind.  Now  this  is 
the  character  assigned  by  the  analytic  criticism  to  the  Penta- 
teuch. Divine  inspiration  is  of  course  discarded  or  left  out  of 
view.  The  individual  veracity  of  the  historian  counts  for 
nothing.  The  narratives  are  constantly  spoken  of  as  traditions. 
Almost  every  narrative  is  declared  to  be  made  up  of  two  or 
more  stories  which  contradict  one  another.  Legends  and  myths 
are  said  to  constitute  a  considerable  portion  of  the  history.  In 
short,  the  history  embraced  in  the  Pentateuch  is  declared  by  the 
analysts  to  be  largely  legendary,  fictitious,  and  untrue,  and 
therefore  untrustworthy.  Thus  is  treated  not  only  the  history 
embraced  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  nearly  the  entire  history  from 
Adam  to  Ezra.  Thus  a  large  portion  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
discredited  and  dishonored — nearly  all  of  Genesis,  Exodus,  and 
Numbers,  a  part  of  Deuteronomy,  all  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel, 
Kings,  and  Chronicles.  If  mankind  shall  ever  be  taught  to 
suspect,  doubt,  and  disbelieve  these  historical  books,  it  will  be 
useless  to  insist  on  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  remain- 
ing portions  of  the  Scriptures.  One  wonders  what  impression  a 
critic  who  is  not  altogether  an  unbeliever  expects  to  make  on  the 
minds  of  his  fellow-men,  and  what  outcome  he  expects  from 
that  impression,  who  maintains  that  the  Pentateuchal  history  is 
so  untrue  and  untrustworthy  that  it  is  incredible  that  Moses 
should  be  the  author  of  it,  and  that  the  most  of  the  succeeding 
Old  Testament  history  is  of  like  character.  A  phrase  often  in 
the  mouths  of  such  critics  is  that  the  doctrine  of  inspiration 
must  be  recast.  They  would  more  consistently  say  cast  out. 
For  if  their  theories  and  argumentation  prevail,  the  doctrine  of 
divine  inspiration  will  be  eliminated  from  the  minds  of  men. 

4.  One  of  the  conclusions  involved  in  the  analytic  h3-pothesis 
is  that  we  have  in  the  PentateucH  oheTbf 'the  most  stupendous 
and  audacious  falsifications  known  in  literary  history.  We  have 
already  stated  that  the  analysts,  in  maintaining  their  hypothesis 
of  the  post-Mosaic  origin  of  the  Levitical  ritual,  are  under  the 
logical  necessity  of  denying  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  taber- 
nacle.    According  to  the  account  given  in  Exodus,  God  gave 


262  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH 

minute  directions  to  Moses  concerning  the  tabernacle — its  size, 
form,  covering,  furniture,  and  the  materials  to  be  employed. 
Now,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  God  would  give  minute 
directions  concerning  the  tabernacle  and  altar,  and  concerning 
their  furniture  and  instruments,  including  even  the  dishes, 
spoons,  and  bowls,  ^  and  no  directions  be  given  in  regard  to 
sacrifice  and  worship.  Accordingly,  in  Exodus  we  have  a  record 
of  directions  for  the  consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  ^  and  the 
daily  morning  and  evening  sacrifice.  ^  In  Leviticus  is  given  the 
code  in  full  for  the  tabernacle  service.  The  tabernacle  and 
the  altar  without  the  code  are  meaningless.  If  we  admit  the 
existence  of  the  tabernacle,  we  must  admit  also  the  service  and 
the  ritual.  The  leading  and  ablest  men  of  the  analytic  school, 
denying  as  they  do  the  ritual,  find  it  necessary  to  deny  the 
existence  of  the  tabernacle  also.  Their  hypothesis  is  that  the 
Mosaic  tabernacle  is  the  projection  of  Solomon's  temple  back 
into  the  past  by  Jewish  romancers.  This  implies  that  the  Pen- 
tateuchal  account  of  the  Mosaic  tabernacle  is  a  pure  falsification, 
and  if  so  it  is  one  of  most  stupendous  proportions. 

According  to  Exodus,*  and  Numbers^  also,  God  showed  to 
Moses  in  the  mount  a  pattern  of  the  tabernacle.  In  all  this, 
according  to  the  analytic  hypothesis,  there  is  not  a  word  of 
truth.  In  Exodus  we  have  the  statement  that  God  called  the 
people  to  contribute  materials  for  the  construction  of  the  taber- 
nacle—  blue,  purple,  scarlet,  fine  linen,  goats'  hair,  rams'  skins, 
badgers'  skins,  oil  for  the  light,  and  many  other  articles.  In 
another  place  we  have  an  account  of  the  way  the  people  re- 
sponded to  this  call,  and  the  articles  contributed  by  them  are 
mentioned.^  The  analytic  hypothesis  declares  this  whole 
account  to  be  untrue.  Exodus  relates  that  God  instructed  Moses 
in  regard  to  the  boards  for  the  construction  of  the  tabernacle — 
their  number,  length,  breadth,  tenons,  and  sockets ;  in  regard 
to  the  candlestick — the  number  of  its  branches,  bowls,  and 
flowers ;  in  regard  to  all  the  instruments  of  service,  even  to  the 
tongs  and  snufi'-dishes ;  in  regard  to  the  priestly  garments  for 
Aaron ;  in  regard  to  the  ark,  the  mercy-seat,  the  cherubim  of 
glory,  the  altar,  the  table,  and  the  bread  of  exposition.  In  regard 
to  all  these,  minute  directions  were  given.  There  is  an  account 
of  the  erection  of  the  tabernacle  on  the  day  appointed,  and  of 

» Ex.  37 :  16.  =  Ex.  29 : 1-37.  ^  Ex.  29  :  38-44.  *  Ex.  25  :  9,  40. 

•Num.  8:4.  «  Ex.  25:1-8;  35:5-29. 


CONSEQUENCES  263 

the  resting  of  the  cloud  upon  it  by  day  and  the  fire  by  night.  In 
Numbers  we  have  an  account  of  the  princes  of  Israel  providing 
six  wagons  and  twelve  oxen  for  the  transportation  of  the  taber- 
nacle and  its  furniture,  and  of  the  assignment  of  two  wagons 
and  four  oxen  to  the  sons  of  Gershon,  and  four  wagons  and  eight 
oxen  to  the  sons  of  Merari.^  In  the  first  and  tenth  chapters  of 
Numbers  we  have  directions  in  regard  to  the  position  of  the 
tabernacle  in  the  camp  and  on  the  march.  But  according  to 
the  analytic  criticism  all  these  accounts  are  purely  fictitious. 
Assuming  the  account  of  the  tabernacle  itself  to  be  a  fabrication, 
it  impliedly  assumes  that  the  pattern  shown  to  Moses  in  the 
mount  is  also  a  fabrication ;  that  the  account  of  contributions  of 
materials  for  the  construction  of  the  tabernacle  is  a  fabrication  ; 
that  the  transportation  of  it  by  six  wagons  and  twelve  oxen  is  a 
fabrication  ;  that  the  camping  of  the  tribes  around  it  is  a  fabri- 
cation ;  that  the  hovering  of  the  cloud  over  it  by  day  and  of  the 
fire  by  night  is  a  fabrication  ;  that  this  account,  as  a  whole  and 
in  all  its  parts,  is  a  fabrication. 

We  speak  of  this  supposed  falsification  of  Jewish  history  as 
stupendous.  It  is  in  advance,  we  think,  of  every  other  known 
in  history  in  two  respects — minuteness  of  detail,  and  extent  and 
permanence  of  success.  This  gigantic  fiction,  as  claimed  by  the 
leading  analytics,  spreads  itself  over  nearly  all  the  Old  Testa- 
ment history.  It  is  set  forth  in  Exodus;  it  is  continued  in 
Leviticus  and  Numbers ;  it  appears  in  Deuteronomy  ;  it  runs 
through  Joshua ;  it  crops  out  frequently  in  Judges  ;  it  shows 
itself  in  Samuel ;  it  is  brought  to  view  in  Kings  and  Chronicles, 
and  it  is  reproduced  in  the  New  Testament.  ^  We  do  not  men- 
tion this  matter  in  order  to  point  out  the  impossibility  of  the 
success  of  a  historical  falsification  on  so  grand  a  scale,  but  to 
call  attention  to  the  legitimate  effect  of  this  hypothesis,  if 
accepted  as  proved  and  true.  In  the  judgment  of  logical  and 
reflective  minds,  what  claims  can  books  which  contain  a  huge 
falsification  of  history  have  to  be  considered  in  any  sense  the 
word  of  God,  who  loves  the  truth  and  hates  a  lie? 

Some  of  the  analysts  may  say  that  they  accept  the  account  of 
the  Mosaic  tabernacle  in  the  wilderness  and  that  we  err  in  repre- 
senting the  analytic  hypothesis  as  involving  the  rejection  of 
it.  To  this  we  reply,  ( i )  that  we  regard  Voltaire,  Colenso, 
Reuss,  Kuenen,  Graf,  and  Wellhausen  as  the  best  exponents  of 

» Num.  7  :  3-9.  -  Heb.  9  :  1-10. 


264  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE    PENTATEJUCH 

the  analytic  criticism,  and  the  best  judges  of  what  is  necessary 
to  its  logical  defense ;  ( 2 )  to  accept  the  historical  account  of  the 
Mosaic  tabernacle  up  to  the  record  of  the  ritual  and  to  reject 
that,  is  justified  by  no  law  either  of  logic  or  common  sense ; 
(3)  to  accept  the  ritual  as  of  Mosaic  origin  is  to  punch  a  hole 
in  the  bottom  of  the  analytic  ship  that  will  soon  cause  it  to 
founder ;  ( 4 )  the  lagging  analytics  may  about  as  well  go  the 
whole  figure  with  their  leaders,  and  declare  the  whole  account  of 
the  Mosaic  tabernacle  an  enormous  falsification,  so  far  as  views 
touching  the  Pentateuch  and  inspiration  are  concerned.  The 
charge  of  small  lying  and  small  thieving  effect  reputation 
nearly  as  much  as  charges  of  larger  criminality.  God  is  not 
more  disposed  to  make  little  liars  or  little  thieves  his  special 
agents  than  big  ones.  If  falsification  is  to  be  charged  on  any 
part  of  the  Scriptures,  it  may  as  well  be  on  a  grand  scale. 

5.  The^doctrijijs  of  evolution  as  set  forth  and  applied  by  the 
analysts  to  the  Pentateuchal  books  is  incompatible  with  the 
divine  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  We  admit 
that  there  is  a  doctrine  of  scientific  evolution  that  is  consistent 
with  theism,  and  that  there  are  many  Christian  evolutionists. 
But  evolution  is  merely  a  natural  process,  not  creation.  The 
evolutionist  may  believe  that  God  created  something,  and  that 
then  the  process  of  evolution  began  in  that  something.  Evolu- 
tion which  accounts  for  the  origin  of  things,  such  as  the 
unscientific  dogma  of  "spontaneous  generation,"  is  atheistic. 
Whatever  is  evolved  existed  previously,  as  the  chick  from  the 
egg,  and  the  germ  from  the  seed.  After  the  evolution,  not  a 
particle  of  matter  exists  that  did  not  exist  before.  Hence  evo- 
lution as  accounting  for  the  origin  of  things,  that  is,  evolution 
out  of  nothing,  is  a  contradiction  and  an  absurdity.  The  only 
real  evolution  is  not  an  absolute  beginning,  is  not  a  creation, 
involves  nothing  supernatural,  but  is  a  development,  by  a  per- 
fectly natural  process,  of  what  previously  existed. 

If,  then,  the  Pentateuchal  laws  and  books  are  to  be  accounted 
for  on  the  principle  of  evolution,  they  are  merely  human  produc- 
tions. In  that  case,  the  often-repeated  formula,  "God  spake  to 
Moses,"  is  untrue;  the  account  of  the  giving  of  the  law  on 
Mount  Sinai,  a  fiction  ;  the  pattern  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  fur- 
niture, showed  beforehand  to  Moses,  a  fabrication,  and  the  whole 
Pentateuch  the  outcome  of  the  Jewish  intellect  and  imagination. 
The  hypothesis  of  the  origin  of  these  books  and  laws  by  evolu- 


conse:que:nces  265 

tion  is  thus  opposed  to  their  origin  by  divine  revelation  or 
inspiration.  And  if  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  is  applied  to 
the  Pentateuch,  it  will  in  the  end  be  applied  to  all  other  parts  of 
the  Bible.  At  present  many  of  the  analysts  shrink  from  doing 
this.  But  some  of  these  will  get  rid  of  their  scruples  and  more 
fully  carry  out  their  views  ;  and,  at  all  events,  their  successors, 
being  more  fully  delivered  from  former  views  and  beliefs,  will  be 
more  ready  to  carry  the  analytic  premises  to  their  legitimate 
conclusions.  The  divine  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  Penta- 
teuchal  laws  and  books  are  as  fully  recognized  by  Christ  and  the 
apostles  as  any  other  portion  of  the  Scripture.  This  testimony 
is  necessarily  set  aside  and  denied  by  those  who  maintain  that 
the  Pentateuch  originated  by  evolution.  How  long  will  it  be 
until  such  men  will  attempt  to  explode  the  doctrine  of  divine 
inspiration  altogether  ?  The  Apostle  Paul  speaks  of  ' '  Scripture 
given  by  inspiration  of  God"  —  theopneustic. ^  The  Apostle 
Peter  says,  speaking  of  "the  prophecy  of  the  Scripture,"  that 
"holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  "^  But  since  the  testimony  of  Christ  in  regard  to  the 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  is  counted  for  nothing  by  the  ana- 
lysts, that  of  Paul  and  Peter  is  not  likely  to  deter  them  from 
finally  concluding  that  the  entire  Scriptures,  as  well  as  the  Pen- 
tateuch, were  given,  not  by  inspiration,  but  by  evolution. 

6.  The  practical  treatment  which  the  Pentateuch  and  other 
parts  of  the  Bible  receive  at  the  hands  of  the  analysts,  not 
only  proceeds  from  unbelief  and  irreverence  in  the  writers,  but 
inevitably  tends  to  produce  the  same  unbelief  and  irreverence  in 
others.  We  speak  now,  not  of  all  the  analytic  school,  but  of  the 
leaders.  These  ignore  the  divine  element  in  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures. With  them  divine  inspiration  counts  for  nothing.  They 
are  mostly  silent  in  regard  to  it.  There  is  more  said  in  the 
writings  of  Voltaire  about  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  than 
by  all  the  other  analytic  leaders  together.  The  argument  from 
silence  is  conclusive  in  some  cases,  and  this  is  one  of  them. 
The  silence  is  evidently  studied  and  intentional.  Clearly,  these 
men  reject  the  supernatural  altogether,  and  their  own  doubts, 
unbelief,  and  irreverence  they  are  more  than  willing  to  infuse 
into  the  minds  of  their  readers.  They  treat  the  Pentateuch  and 
other  books  of  the  Bible  as  merely  human,  and  as  fallible  and 
erroneous.     Nor  do  they  restrict  themselves  to  charges  of  slight 

1 11.  Tim.  3  :  16.  » II.  Pet.  1 :  20,  21. 


266  MOSAIC   AUTHORSHIP  OP  THE    PENTATEUCH 

degrees  of  fallibility  and  erroneousness.  They  go  much  farther 
than  the  rejection  of  verbal  and  plenary  inspiration.  They  im- 
peach the  historical  character  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  many 
other  books  of  the  Bible.  They  declare  the  historical  books  — 
more  than  half  the  Bible — to  be  untrustworthy.  They  virtually 
teach  that  these  books  are  more  contradictory,  inaccurate,  erro- 
neous, and  untrustworthy  than  Herodotus  and  Livy.  They  do 
not  hesitate  to  set  aside  as  untrue  any  passage  that  contravenes 
their  theories.  They  dispose  of  every  such  passage  as  a  redac- 
tion, an  interpolation,  or  a  false  reading,  or  by  endeavoring  in 
some  other  way  to  throw  doubt  or  suspicion  on  the  integrity  of 
the  text.  The  practical  effect  of  such  a  course  is  to  produce 
uncertainty,  suspicion,  and  skepticism.  Even  if  the  reader  re- 
tains belief  in  the  Scriptures  as  given  by  divine  inspiration,  he 
is  taught  that  they  are  patched  over  with  interpolations,  false 
readings,  contradictory  statements,  and  other  errors.  Thus  the 
reader  who  accepts  the  guidance  of  the  analytic  critics  must  be 
in  doubt  as  to  whether  he  can  find  the  word  of  the  lyord  anywhere 
in  the  Bible.  Thus,  too,  the  analytic  school,  as  represented  by 
its  most  distinguished  champions,  is  doing  more  to  paralyze 
Christian  faith  than  did  the  outspoken  infidels  of  the  last  cen- 
tury. We  have,  however,  neither  doubt  nor  fear  as  to  the  final 
result.  We  have  full  faith  in  the  Bible  as  the  inspired  word  of 
God,  and  an  assured  confidence  that,  through  the  overruling 
providence  of  God,  all  assaults  upon  it  by  concealed  as  well  as 
by  avowed  enemies,  together  with  the  errors  of  mistaken  friends, 
will  in  the  end  contribute  to  the  vindication  of  its  divine  inspi- 
ration and  authority. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


AARON,  170, 171. 
Aben-Ezra,  13. 
Abraham,  12, 149, 158. 
Abydenus,  156. 

Acquaintance  with  Egypt,  136. 
Adaptation,  119. 
AUotopisms,  claimed,  57. 
Amos,  227. 

Anachronisms,  claimed,  35. 
Analytic  criticism  founded  by  Vol- 
taire, 18-24. 
Analytic  views,  9. 
Ants,  intelligence  of,  148. 
Aramaisms,  130,  131,  219. 
Argumentuyn  e  silentio,  19. 
Ark,  155, 156. 

Arming  of  the  Israelites,  101. 
Asa's  burial,  139. 
Assyrian  sculptures,  154. 
Astruc,  13, 14,  103. 
Asurbanipal,  150. 
Atonement,  Day  of,  246,  247. 
Authors,  plurality  of,  103. 

BABEli,  156, 157. 

Babylonian  tradition,  150, 154. 

Bacon,  B.  W.,  9, 10. 

Bacon,  Lord,  108. 

Bancroft,  23. 

Bashan,  159. 

Beer-sheba,  origin  of  the  name,  66. 

Berosus,  155. 

"  Beyond  Jordan,"  57-60. 

Bleek,  27,  38. 

Bolingbroke,  16. 

Book  of  the  wars  of  the  Lord,  18, 

43-45. 
Book  found  in  Josiah's  time,  210. 
Brick-making,  140. 
Briggs,  Professor,  31,  227. 
Brugsch-Bey,  38, 159, 162,  193. 


Burckhardt,  159. 
Burke,  109. 
Burns,  110. 
Byron,  109. 

CwffiSAR,  Julius,  31. 

Carlyle,  quoted,  95. 

Cattle  and  sheep  in  the  wilderness, 

89. 
Cave,  his  hypothesis,  104, 116. 
Centralization  of  worship,  230. 
Chaldean  account  of  Genesis,  154-156. 
Chedorlaomer,  157. 
Cheyne,  referred  to,  21,  111,  130. 

on  Isaiah,  198,  225. 

on  style.  111. 
"Childe  Harold,"  109, 112. 
Christ  and  the  apostles,  testimony 

of,  248. 
Chronicles,  books  of,  209. 
Chronology,  164. 

Cities  and  places  in  Egypt,  140-142. 
Cities  and  places  in  Palestine,  141, 142. 
Clericus  { Le  Clerc ),  13,  15. 
Colenso,  73,  79,  80,  91, 100. 
Coleridge,  109. 
Consequences,  257. 
Contradictions,  claimed,  63. 
Cory's  "  Ancient  Fragments,"  155, 157. 
"Cosmos,"  176. 
Cowper,  31,  109. 
Creation,  account  of,  63, 143. 
Cromwell,  95. 
Cyrus,  20. 

«  D,"  9, 10, 244. 
Dan,  18,  39. 
Daniel,  20. 

Darwinism,  146-148, 153. 
David  as  Psalmist,  221-224. 
Decalogue,  245. 


267 


268 


INDEX   OF  SUBJECTS 


Deluge,  154-156, 164. 

De  Wette,  13, 14. 

♦'  Dictlonnaire  PMlosophique,"  16, 43, 

49,  55,  57,  79. 
Difficulties,  claimed,  72. 
Dinah,  74,  76. 
Diodorus  Siculus,  163, 175. 
Discussion,  history  of,  13. 
Diseases  of  Egypt,  139. 
Divine  names  in  Genesis,  113. 
Documentary  hypothesis,  9, 103. 
Driver,  referred  to,  21, 130,  219. 

his  list  of  phrases,  111,  112. 

his  egotism,  34. 
*'Dt,"34. 

"  E,"  9, 10, 108,  111,  115, 191. 
Ebedtob,  158. 
Edda,  154. 
Eden,  153. 

Edom,  kings  of,  39-42. 
Egotism  of  Moses,  31-34. 
Egypt,  acquaintance  with,  136. 
Egyptian  words  and  names,  193. 
Embalming,  139,  175. 
Errors  in  the  Pentateuch,  12, 15. 
Esau's  wives,  69. 
Etham,  132, 141, 175. 
Eusebius,  156. 

Evolution,  9,  146-149,  206,  227. 
Exactness,  161. 
External  evidence,  197. 
Ezekiel,  30. 
Ezra,  11,  76. 

Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  books  of,  216- 
220. 

FAiiii  of  man,  153. 
First-born,  number  of,  85. 

Garfield,  66. 

Genealogies,  72-79. 

George,  13. 

Gesenius,  221,  224,  241. 

Gibeonites,  231. 

Goshen,  140. 

Graf,  99, 197,  211. 

Green,  Professor  W.  H.,  101,  219. 

Habckel,  143, 147, 148, 153. 
Har-el,  43. 
Hebron,  37,  38, 141. 
Hengstenberg,  175. 


Henriade,  109. 
Herodotus,  137, 162,  163, 175. 
Historical   integrity   of  the   Penta- 
teuch, 152. 
History,  argument  from,  229. 
History  of  the  discussion,  13. 
Hobbes,  13. 
Hosea,  225. 
Humboldt,  176. 
Hume,  31. 
Hyksos,  158. 

Imaginings,  arguments  from,  93. 
Improprieties,  claimed,  30. 
Increase  in  Egypt,  79-85. 
Interest  or  usury  laws,  126. 
Internal  evidence,  119. 
Isaiah,  30,  225. 

"J,"  9, 10, 105, 107,  111,  115, 191. 

Jacob-el,  158. 

Jasher,  Book  of,  45. 

"JE,"34,  112,  113,  244. 

Jebel  Musa— Sinai,  177. 

Jefferson  and  Washington,  34. 

Jeremiah,  30, 130. 

Jethro,  12,  69. 

Joel,  228. 

John,  30. 

Joseph-el,  158. 

Josephus,  30,  39,  83, 101. 

Joshua  presupposes  Pentateuch,  205- 

207. 
Journalistic  form  and  theory,  132. 
Judges,  Book  of,  208. 

Kautzsch-Socin,  34,  81, 108, 182,  244. 
Kenosis,  251. 
Kenrick,  162, 164. 
Kirk  White,  31. 
Ktesias,  163. 

Kuenen,  47,  49,  51,  63,  65,  81,  111,  121, 
124, 134,  178,  199,  204,  226. 
his  egotism,  34. 

IjAmech,  164, 165. 
Landmarks,  law  of,  56, 185. 
Layard,  154. 

Legislation,  argunient  from,  178. 
Lemuria,  153. 
Lenormant,  153,  154. 
Leprosy,  law  of,  127, 185. 
Lepsius,  90,  164,  177. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


269 


Letters  of  some  Jews  to  Voltaire,  22. 

Leviticism  —  Reuss,  206. 

Lincoln,  66. 

Linguistic  argument,  108-113. 

Lubbock,  Sir  John,  U8. 

Macaulay,  108. 

Manna,  cessation  of,  45-47. 

Marah,  132,  133. 

Maspero,  164. 

Matthew,  30. 

Max  Miiller,  147. 

Megiddo,  38. 

Melchizedec,  158. 

Menephtah  IL,  158. 

Methuselah,  149. 

Midianites  were  Ishmaelites,  67. 

Migdol,  132,  133, 141. 

Milton,  109. 

Miracles,  92, 161. 

Mivart,  147. 

Mixed  multitude,  159. 

Moriah,  42. 

Moses,  11, 12,  32,  40,  96, 103, 129, 132, 133, 

171,  193. 
Mt.  Serbal,  90. 

Naville,  159, 164, 176. 
Negeb,  60,  62. 
Nehemiah,  30. 

Nehemiah  and  Ezra,  books  of,  216- 
220. 

Objections,  27. 

Og,  18,  48. 
On,  140. 

"  P,"  9, 10,  244. 

Paine,  Thomas,  30,  39,  49,  218. 

Palestine,  141, 142. 

Palmer,  Professor,  90, 176, 177. 

Pandora,  154. 

Passover,  126,  243. 

Paul,  33,  83. 

"PC,"  134. 

Peyrere,  13. 

Pharaoh  of  the  exodus,  158. 

Pharaoh  of  the  oppression,  158. 

Pi-hahiroth,  175,  176. 

Pithom,  140,  158,  159,  175,  176. 

Place  of  man's  origin,  152,  153. 

Plenary  inspiration,  12,  31. 

Plurality  of  authors,  103. 


Plutarch,  163. 
Points  in  dispute,  9. 
Preliminary,  9. 
Presupposition,  123. 
Primitive  condition  of  man,  153. 
Prophecies,  225. 
Proverbs,  20, 190. 
Pucelle,  109. 

"Q,"9.  • 

«R,"136. 

Rameses,  132, 140, 193. 

Rameses  II.,  38, 158. 

Rameses  III.,  38. 

"Religious  Encyclopedia,"  219. 

Renan,  33. 

Rephidim,  176. 

Reuss,  13,  36,  39,  40,  41,  43,  45,  47,  49,  50, 

53,  54,  63,  65,  67,  68,  70,  72,  81,  93, 

97,  98, 133, 199,  204,  211. 
Ritter,  90. 
Robinson,  Dr.,  159. 

Sabbath,  institution  of,  244,  245. 

Sale  of  Joseph,  67. 

Samuel,  books  of,  208. 

Sayce,  38,  43,  60,  61,  157, 160,  163, 177. 

Scientific  accuracy,  143. 

Scott,  Sir  Walter,  109. 

Self-commendation  by  Moses,  31. 

Septuagint,  80,  82, 165,  174,  241. 

Serah,  74,  76. 

Shaving  in  Egypt,  137. 

Shiloh,  232,  234-236,  239. 

Silence,  argument  from,  189, 190,  220. 

Sinai,  90, 176. 

Sixty  cities,  18. 

Smith,  George,  150, 155. 

Smith,  Professor  W.  R.,  30,  31,  130, 176, 

226. 
Sojourn  in  Egypt,  79-84,  169. 
Spinoza,  13. 

Spontaneous  generation,  146, 147. 
Strabo,  163. 

Style,  108-113,  129,  218,  219. 
Succoth,  132,  140, 141,  159. 

Tabernacle,  14,  99,  241,  243. 
Tables  of  stone,  97. 
Tabular  view  of  the  analytic  hypoth- 
esis, 9. 
Terah,  80, 167. 


270 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Third  person  employed  by  Moses,  30, 

31. 
Thothmes  III.,  43. 
Thucydides,  31. 
Traditional  view,  11. 
"Traite  sur  Tolerance,"  15, 16, 18. 

Unity  of  the  human  race,  151. 

Unity  of  worship,  230-247. 
"Unto  this  day,"  49-53. 
Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  149, 158. 

Vatke,  13. 
Virchow,  147. 
Vitringa,  103. 
Voltaire,  13, 14-23, 109,  2U. 


Wallace,  Alfred  R.,  147. 

Wars  of  the  Lord,  book  of,  18,  48,  45. 

Washington,  34. 

Webster,  33. 

Wellhausen,  13,  101,  102,  111,  134,  209, 

210,  216,  226,  239. 
Wilkinson,  61, 137, 162, 164. 

Xenophon,  31. 
Xisuthrus,  155. 

Yam  for  west,  60-62. 

Zend-Avesta,  154. 
Zipporah,  95,  97. 


SCRIPTURE  INDEX 


GENESIS—  Page 

1:1-31 113 

2:2,a 246 

2:7 148 

2:7-25 64 

2:8,14 153 

3:15 250 

5:32 166 

7:  1-8:7 105,  106 

7:4,10 245 

7:9,17. 114 

7:  11 165,  166 

8:  6 96 

8:  10,  12 245 

9:  28,29 166 

10:21 167 

11:3 157 

11:  10-32 166 

11:26 167 

11:31 65 

11:32 167 

12:4 167,  168 

12:6 35,  141 

12:8 141 

13:3 141 

13:7 35 

13:18 36,  141 

14:  14 39 

14:  18 158 

15:  1 114 

15:  13 79,    83 

15:  16 79,    82 

16:3 168 

16:  16 168 

17:24,25 168 

20:  1-18. 65,  187 

21:5 168 

21:  14 93 

21:25-31 66 

22:2 42 

22:  14 43 

271 


GENESIS,  Continued—  Pagi 

23:2 37,38,  141 

23:4 78 

23:19 37 

24:4 78 

25:  17 167,  168 

25:20 168 

26:  15,18 66,    67 

26:34 69 

28:9 69 

32:3 70 

32:28 68 

35:10 68 

35:  16,  26 70 

35:16-19 69 

35:21-26 70 

35:27 37,  141 

36:24 90 

36:  31 39,    42 

36:39 41 

37:  13-35 107 

37:18-36 67 

39:1 67 

40:  15 53,    68 

40:  16 175 

41:2-6 175 

41:14 137 

41:56-42:38 107 

42:  1-8 108 

42:27 96 

44:  1 99 

45:  4 68 

46:  1-3 83 

46:  8 74,76,  173 

46:  8-27 173 

46:  15 74,76,  173 

46:  17,  18 74 

46:21 75 

46:26 72 

46:27 75,76,173,  174 

46:28,29 140 


2']2 


SCRIPTURE   INDEX 


OENESIS,  Continued—  p^gk 

49:  10 250 

49:18 114 

50:2 139 

50:3 175 

50:26 139,  175 

EXODUS— 

1:8 158 

1:11 158 

2:1,2 95 

2:15-22 96 

3:1 90 

3:6 249 

4:25 96 

5:6-19 140,  158 

6: 16-18 76,82,    83 

7:7 171 

9:18-26 137 

9:25 137 

9:28,29 138 

12:  1-28 125 

12:2,42 170 

12:37 79,  140 

12:38 79,    89 

12:40 80 

13:  1-16 88 

13:18 100 

13:20 141 

14:2 141 

14:21 92 

14:30 101 

15:3 43 

15:21 44 

15:23-25 91 

15:26 140 

16:35 45,    46 

17:1-6 91 

17:3 89 

17:6 92 

17:14 44,129,  133 

17:8-13. 44,  101 

18:3 94 

20:1-23:33 129 

20:24 178,186,  230 

21:13,14. 125 

22:25 126,  223 

23:14-17 179 

24:3, '4 133 

25:9,40 242,  262 

32:  15 98 

33:7 100 

34:1 102 


EXODUS,  Continued—  Pam 

34:3 90 

34:18-24 179 

40:  17-38 243 

LEVITICUS— 

13,14 127 


13:2 

127 

14:34 

185,  186 

14:33-53 

184 

16:20-22 

250 

17:3,4 

126 

17:3-9 

186 

19:23 

186 

23:4-8 

125,  244 

25:2 

186 

25:35-37 

126 

27:5,6 

89 

NUMBERS  — 

1:1 88,  170 

1:46 86 

3:40 87 

3:43 85,87,    88 

3:46,47 89 

7:3-9 263 

8:  10-16 180 

9: 1 126,  170 

10:11 170 

12:1 69,    97 

13:22 37,  141 

20:8 92 

21:1-3 44 

21:14 43 

21:16 92 

21:21-31 44 

21:33-35 44,    48 

24:  17 250 

31:1-47 44 

32:19 59 

32:41 55 

33:  1-49 ...132 

34:15 59 

35:  11-29 125 

35:30 127 

DEUTERONOMY  — 

1:1 57,  58 

1:3 170 

1:5 58 

2:12 47 

3:8 58,  59 

3:14 51,  55 


SCRIPTURE   INDEX 


^12> 


DEUTERONOMY,  Continued—      Pag. 

3:20 58,    59 

3:25 58 

4:41,46,47,49 58 

4:41-43 125 

7:2,3 208 

7:15 139 

10:2,4 102 

10:8 51 

11:  10,11 138 

11:30 58 

12:5 186,236,  239 

16:  1-8 126,215,  244 

16:  16 180 

17:  1-13 189 

17:6,7 127 

17:  14 186 

18:  18 250 

19:  1-13 125 

19:  14 185 

23:  19,  20 126,  223 

24:  7 68 

24:  8 127 

28:27 139 

28:  58 214 

28:  60 139 

29:  21 214 

30:  10 214 

31:  9 133 

31:  19 133 

31 :  24-26 133,  214 

33:4,5 40,  222 

34:6 51 

JOSHUA— 

1:1,2. 207 

1:7,8. 205 

1:  15 59 

3:3 205 

4:9 200 

5:  1 59,  203 

5:  2-9 231 

5:  10 231,  244 

5:  12 45 

6:  13 206 

6:25 201 

7:6 231 

7:26 200 

8:28 198 

8:31,35 2a5,   231 

8:32,34 20.5 

9:  1 59,    60 

9:1-27 60 

18 


JOSHUA,  Contintted —  Pxgb 

9:27 201 

10:  13 45 

12:1,7 59 

14:  15 37 

15:  63 199 

16  :  10 198 

18:  1 205,232,  234 

18:7 59 

18:6,8,10 232 

19:51 232 

20  :  8 59 

22:7 59 

22:9-34 232 

22  :  29 207,  232,  237 

23:6 205 

24:  14,23 233 

24:  31 203,  233 

JUDGES  — 

2:1-5 236 

2:2 208 

2 :  7-11 203 

2:10-12 233 

2:  16-19 233 

3 :  3,  5 36 

3:6 208 

6:  11-23 237 

6 :  25-32 237 

8:2 67 

9:6,22 40 

10:3,4 55 

13:  1-23 208,  237 

14:  3 208 

17:6 234 

18:1 234 

18:31 234,  235 

19:  18 208,235 

20:27,28 235 

I.  SAMUEL— 

1:1-3 235 

1:3,9,11,25 208 

2:  15,27-29 208 

7:3 238 

20:5,18 208 

21:  1-6 238 

22:9-19 238 

27:7 51 

30:  11-20 188 

II.  SAMUEL— 

1  :  17-27 45 


274 


scripture;  index 


II.  SAMUEL,  Continued—  Paoi 

5:  6-9 199,  200 

6:  1-18 238 

15:  24-29 238 

23:  1 221 

I.  KINGS— 

4:  2-6 240 

8:  1-6 240 

9:  16,17 198 

II.  KINGS  — 

14:5,6 210 

22:8-13 211,212,  214 

23:  3 215 

23:  10 215 

I.  CHRONICLES— 

7:  6-12 75 

7:22-27 76,  82 

11:4-8 199,  200 

18:  17 241 

22:13.... 210 

23:27 182 

24:4 77 

II.  CHRONICLES— 

2:4 246 

5:  10 210 

16:  14 139 

17:7-9 210 

29:  30 221 

33:8 210 

34:14-19 211 

35:  \-W 215 

35:  6,  12 213 

EZRA  — 

2:28 198 

7:3 76 

7:6 216 

NEHEMIAH  — 

5:  14-19 33 

7:  32 198 

8:  1,2 216 

11:31 198 

PSALMS  — 

15 223 

18 223 

18:22 223 

19 223 


PSALMS,  Continued—  Paob 

40 223 

51 228 

78 221 

78:5 222 

78:60 236 

105 222 

105:45 222 

106 222 

ISAIAH  — 

1:  11-15 225 

1:15 225 

10:28 198 

57:  6 225 

58:3-7 225 

JEREMIAH  — 

10:  11 130 

DANIEL  — 

9:  23 32 

10:  11 32 

HOSEA  — 

4:6 225 

5:  10 225 

8:  11 225 

8:12 226 

9:4 226 

11:8 226 

12:3-5 226 

12:  12 226 

JOEL  — 

1:  9,  13 228 

2:  17 228 

AMOS  — 

2:  10 227 

2:  11,  12 227 

4:4,5 227 

5:21,22 228 

MATTHEW  — 

1:  1 119 

1:8 77 

1:  11 77 

4:  1 254 

5:  18 258 

8:4 248 

12:  13 92 

14:  15 90 


SCRIPTURE   INDEX 


275 


MARK—  P4GI 

7:  10 248 

10:2-5 248 

12:26 249 

13:11 254 

13:32 251 

LUKE- 

2:22 251 

3:22 251 

4:  1 254 

16:  17 258 

16:29,31 250 

24:44 249,250,  253 

JOHN  — 

1:  17 250 

1:45 250 

1:48,49 252 

3:34 254 

4:29 252 

5  :  45-47 249 

6:10 90 

7:15 252 

7:22,23 249 

8:28 255 

10:85 258 

11:42 25.5 

12:49,50 255 

14:10 255 

14:26 254 

16:  13 254 

21:17 252 


ACTS—  p^o, 

2:4 254 

7:  6 80 

7:14 173 

16:10 203 

27:9 247 

28:23 251 


ROMANS— 
10:  5 


I.  CORINTHIANS  — 

9:9 

11  :8,9 

15:  10 


II.  CORINTHIANS  — 
3:  15 


GALATIANS— 
3:  17 


PHILIPPIANS 
2:7 


II.  TIMOTHY  — 
3:  16 


251 


251 
121 
33 


251 


83 


251 


266 


HEBREWS  — 

7:9,10 77 

9:1-10 263 

9:7 247 

10:28 251 


